# Gtr vs 458



## Kabz r35 Gtr (Sep 27, 2012)

Hi guys

Need ur lots help here my mate has a 458 Italia they are 570hp and I'm sure they weight a lot less then the Gtr. My car has the svm 650r package my mate wants to have ago with my car and his to see which One will be quicker. It's going to happen next year some time and the weather is not ideal. I've been in his car previously and it's not slow so I've got my doubts what do u guys think what will be the outcome?


----------



## Sinth (Sep 26, 2010)

your car will destroy it.

From 0:48


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Yours will be quicker, but not by much. The 458 is definitely quicker than a stage 1.


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

You will be quicker than him. If its from standstill with launch control you will be a few car lengths ahead. I've had a race with a mate of mine and both times Godzilla came out on top


----------



## Kabz r35 Gtr (Sep 27, 2012)

R35 Boxer said:


> You will be quicker than him. If its from standstill with launch control you will be a few car lengths ahead. I've had a race with a mate of mine and both times Godzilla came out on top


What if I was to do a rolling start say about 50mph?


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

Kabz r35 Gtr said:


> What if I was to do a rolling start say about 50mph?


I'd say from 50-130 the GTR would stay ahead but the 458 will not be too far off!


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Never understood why folks want to compare a stock supercar with a Stage X GTR... Its not relevant..only stock V stock is remotely relevant.
Again, its not ALL about the straight line performance..

TT


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

I run against a 458 on a track of course, ahem  lets just say we were both pushing it on a straight at one point and I was actually gaining. Not by much mind, but it was gaining none the less. 

I'm sure the 458 driver was shocked. Bet he thought some young up start is keeping up with me in a Datsun lol. BTW he actually sought me out from the pack and planted it after dropping two cogs. It was a lovely looking beast and sounded epic :smokin:

I'm guessing the extra slug of torque the '35 produces really helps out.


----------



## sw20GTS (Jul 29, 2010)

Come on, don't you know by now that the GTR is the fastest car in the world? Nothing beats it


----------



## Satan (Mar 8, 2012)

tarmac terror said:


> Never understood why folks want to compare a stock supercar with a Stage X GTR... Its not relevant..only stock V stock is remotely relevant.
> Again, its not ALL about the straight line performance..
> 
> TT


Its more than relevant if you do the comparison on purchase price or bang for buck.


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

sw20GTS said:


> Come on, don't you know by now that the GTR is the fastest car in the world? Nothing beats it


Lol, I know what you mean mate. However I'm a realist and know that there's always something bigger and better out there :bowdown1: however I was shocked at how well my 40k little beastie stuck with a brand new Supercar and for that matter one that I really admire :bowdown1:


----------



## Nedzilla (Feb 10, 2012)

I thought we'd all seen this by now.......it gives you a good idea anyway.

World's Greatest Drag Race! - YouTube


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Satan said:


> Its more than relevant if you do the comparison on purchase price or bang for buck.


*yawn* old arguement. This bang for buck thing wears a bit thin. Theres more to a car than just how fast/quick it goes in a straight line you know. The GTR may be a decent car but there IS better out there. The GTR isnt exactly the epitome of excellent interior quality...it lacks in various areas.

No 1 car is 'perfect'...they all have their foibles. Id rather learn to live with the foibles of a 458 than GTR but then, thats my personal opinion....

TT


----------



## SNEL (Mar 9, 2008)

I came up against one at Mallory and according to someone timing us I was taking 6 seconds a lap out of him!

I took his son out for a few laps so that's how I got chatting to the geezer timing


The 458 owner came over for a chat as well and he eventually admitted to having a GTR in his garage!!

I had a 360 a while ago and it was terrible on track, 458 looked a lot better.


----------



## Kabz r35 Gtr (Sep 27, 2012)

When it comes to price and performance i think the Gtr takes the crown


----------



## sw20GTS (Jul 29, 2010)

tarmac terror said:


> *yawn* old arguement. This bang for buck thing wears a bit thin. Theres more to a car than just how fast/quick it goes in a straight line you know. The GTR may be a decent car but there IS better out there. The GTR isnt exactly the epitome of excellent interior quality...it lacks in various areas.
> 
> No 1 car is 'perfect'...they all have their foibles. Id rather learn to live with the foibles of a 458 than GTR but then, thats my personal opinion....
> 
> TT


Finally, someone who speaks the truth! :bowdown1: Agree especially with the interior bit.


----------



## Kabz r35 Gtr (Sep 27, 2012)

Forgot to mention that he also has a f430 spider and I left it standing it was bad lol that's why he wants to race the 458 with my Gtr. That race was when I was on a y pipe and bens custom tune so I'm quite positive that the 458 won't have a chance Now that im on the 650r it must kill him to know a 40k car embarrass his car twice or three times the value of my car I'm talking performance not looks


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

tarmac terror said:


> *yawn* old arguement. This bang for buck thing wears a bit thin. Theres more to a car than just how fast/quick it goes in a straight line you know. The GTR may be a decent car but there IS better out there. The GTR isnt exactly the epitome of excellent interior quality...it lacks in various areas.
> 
> No 1 car is 'perfect'...they all have their foibles. Id rather learn to live with the foibles of a 458 than GTR but then, thats my personal opinion....
> 
> TT


Mate I think my post admits that I know there is better out there than the GTR. However I still love her lol. I'd love a 458 if I had the cash, although personally I'd take the Macca in burnt orange please :smokin:


----------



## KingOfTheGT-R (May 21, 2011)

saucyboy said:


> I run against a 458 on a track of course, ahem  lets just say we were both pushing it on a straight at one point and I was actually gaining. Not by much mind, but it was gaining none the less.
> 
> I'm sure the 458 driver was shocked. Bet he thought some young up start is keeping up with me in a Datsun lol. BTW he actually sought me out from the pack and planted it after dropping two cogs. It was a lovely looking beast and sounded epic :smokin:
> 
> I'm guessing the extra slug of torque the '35 produces really helps out.


 Is your GTR stock? 

Why Fezza don't give the 458 two big turbos i'll never know.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

KingOfTheGT-R said:


> Why Fezza don't give the 458 two big turbos i'll never know.



What, like THIS.....













Hmmm wonder if a 'stage 2' 458 will beat a stock GTR????? Whatd'ya think folks???? It seems a perfectly fair match and relevant question to ask don't you think? 

TT


----------



## KingOfTheGT-R (May 21, 2011)

tarmac terror said:


> What, like THIS.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Oh yes just like that!!

I would not mess with a Underground 458 or Gallardo ever lol Unless I was packing the Alpha 12


----------



## robsm (Jul 22, 2008)

tarmac terror said:


> *yawn* old arguement. This bang for buck thing wears a bit thin. Theres more to a car than just how fast/quick it goes in a straight line you know. The GTR may be a decent car but there IS better out there. The GTR isnt exactly the epitome of excellent interior quality...it lacks in various areas.
> 
> No 1 car is 'perfect'...they all have their foibles. Id rather learn to live with the foibles of a 458 than GTR but then, thats my personal opinion....
> 
> TT


Lol, i never understand why people like you care so much as well, its just a bit childish fun, lighten up*bud.


----------



## rob wild (Jul 30, 2007)

robsm said:


> Lol, i never understand why people like you care so much as well, its just a bit childish fun, lighten up*bud.


Because he enjoys trash talking the 35 and 'baiting' R35 owners  



tarmac terror said:


> *yawn* old arguement. This bang for buck thing wears a bit thin. Theres more to a car than just how fast/quick it goes in a straight line you know. The GTR may be a decent car but there IS better out there.


Like the R32 GTR?


----------



## vanos (Mar 8, 2008)

I ran against 458 '12 on the GTBOARD event (from 50km/h). I destroyed it. 
(Running on E85 vs stock Ferrari)


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

robsm said:


> Lol, i never understand why people like you care so much as well, its just a bit childish fun, lighten up*bud.


Who exactly are 'people like me'??? And I care because im a car enthusiast with a bit of objectivity which some of you fanboys clearly lack :chairshot



> Because he enjoys trash talking the 35 and 'baiting' R35 owners


Who's trash talking or baiting??? Im simply stating that the GTR is not the be-all-and-end-all that some people claim it is. It IS a very accomplished car but it aint the second coming of Christ FFS!!! 
Outright performance isnt the ONLY measure of a car you know! 

And i never once stated anywhere or even thought that an R32GTR was a 'better' car :chairshot. THATS just blatant stirring and quite uncalled for :GrowUp:

A lot of you guys drive around with your heads so far up your own arses that you have lost all sense of objectivity therefore your opinions arent really worth too much TBH

TT


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

id love a 458 and id swop my GTR in a hart beat for one. 

performance isnt far off. The looks, exhaust/engine noise, interior are far better in the 458. 

not that i dont love my GTR but to put it into perspective its the same thing if I had a McLaren Mp4-12c id swop it for a 458. People underestimate the most important thing which is how the car makes you feel. How much it makes you happy and how often it puts a smile on your face.

1:15 into the video says it all. 
Ferrari 458 Maxflo Performance Exhaust System - YouTube


----------



## ForgingEngineer (Aug 31, 2012)

lol thought i saw a TTRS forum thread that went the same way recently!!

R35 is a beautifully engineered car but if we compare bang for buck theres obviously better out there. Thing is its all a matter of opinion (looks vs performance vs cost vs reliability) and it doesnt matter as long as your happy with where you have put your money!

Let em have there fun, after all thats what its all about!


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

ForgingEngineer said:


> lol thought i saw a TTRS forum thread that went the same way recently!!
> 
> R35 is a beautifully engineered car but if we compare bang for buck theres obviously better out there. Thing is its all a matter of opinion (looks vs performance vs cost vs reliability) and it doesnt matter as long as your happy with where you have put your money!
> 
> Let em have there fun, after all thats what its all about!


Totally agree. :thumbsup:

the best way to get around this is buy your car and dont drive any other in case you like it more then what you have


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

tarmac terror said:


> What, like THIS.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mate that is pure car porn :bowdown1: I love Undergrounds work.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

saucyboy said:


> Mate that is pure car porn :bowdown1: I love Undergrounds work.


Agree they make cars faster but for me adding turbo's would mean a downgrade on the engine noise and exhaust. would change the car's feel quite drastically for the worse for me.

same goes for the lp700 they did.

if you want fast keep your 458, lp700 and use the money on modding a gtr or something else that already was designed with turbo's in mind.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Not sure about all this killing a 458 stuff. A 650 should be quicker in a straight line but I don't think it would "kill" the 458. 

My brother has a 458 and I have a stage 1 Gtr. The 458 is quicker, but not by much. Here is a video of stock vs stock. 

Ferrari 458 Italia vs Nissan GTR 485 HP - YouTube


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

I have just gone from a stage 4 GTR to a 458 and its hard to say which is quicker.......

There is a certain runway event in Wales being organised next year, so why not see what happens then?


----------



## alex_123_fra (Mar 26, 2008)

I very much doubt a 458 is quicker than a stage 1 up to around 130 or so (unless it is a poorly perfoming stage 1) given that a stock MY12 will quite convincingly pull away from a standing (both using LC) or low speed rolling start. 

Adding turbos to the 458 is also wrong imo. Aside from the fact that it wasn't designed for it, I agree it would totally change the feel of the car and most likely ruin it. The 458 and the GT-R are both exceptionally good at what they do and what they are designed for. The GT-R happens to be more usable in day to day life hence why I would prefer it every time.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

The my12 pulled a number of lengths at the start. It was down to 1 length at the end. 458 definitely quicker than a stage 1 from my own experience.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Destroyed one in mine.....no problem all show/noise and no go compared to a good gtr


----------



## rob wild (Jul 30, 2007)

tarmac terror said:


> Who exactly are 'people like me'??? And I care because im a car enthusiast with a bit of objectivity which some of you fanboys clearly lack :chairshot


Hardly! with a statement like that! i.e. 'fanboys' which is nothing about cars and plenty todo with owners. For me that went from a Supra to R34 GTR to R35 GTR I would consider myself a 'true' car enthusiast as I also see the good in other cars not just GTR's and certainly don't take any opportunity to have have a 'pop' at others! We've had this discussion before TT!



tarmac terror said:


> Who's trash talking or baiting??? Im simply stating that the GTR is not the be-all-and-end-all that some people claim it is. It IS a very accomplished car but it aint the second coming of Christ FFS!!!
> Outright performance isnt the ONLY measure of a car you know!


Considering that no one including the OP said that GTR was the 'be-all-and-end-all' I would say wandering into the R35 section and posting your usual 'anti' GTR post IS trash talking/baiting. 



tarmac terror said:


> And i never once stated anywhere or even thought that an R32GTR was a 'better' car :chairshot. THATS just blatant stirring and quite uncalled for :GrowUp:


Its irritating when that happens isn't it  But in the same token I wouldn't post in the R32/3/4 GTR section 'anti' R32/3/4 posts as I'm an enthusiast and believe its each to their own!



tarmac terror said:


> A lot of you guys drive around with your heads so far up your own arses that you have lost all sense of objectivity therefore your opinions arent really worth too much TBH
> 
> TT


Arrhhh baiting again.


----------



## GTR PERFORMANCE (Oct 16, 2011)

rob wild said:


> Hardly! with a statement like that! i.e. 'fanboys' which is nothing about cars and plenty todo with owners. For me that went from a Supra to R34 GTR to R35 GTR I would consider myself a 'true' car enthusiast as I also see the good in other cars not just GTR's and certainly don't take any opportunity to have have a 'pop' at others! We've had this discussion before TT!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I totally agree with ya bud, i bet you if he could own one himself he wouldnt then slag it off then. Fact is an R35 is one of the most fastest cars out there for its price tag not forgetting its a beauty to look at in and out just quality!


----------



## New Reg (Jul 22, 2011)

GTR PERFORMANCE said:


> I totally agree with ya bud, i bet you if he could own one himself he wouldnt then slag it off then. Fact is an R35 is one of the most fastest cars out there for its price tag not forgetting its a beauty to look at in and out just quality!


Best thing is not to feed the trolls - the comeback now will be 'I could go out tomorrow and buy one if I wanted to.'  There seem to be a few 32/33 owners who enjoy coming over in to the 35 area and stirring. Strange you never see it the other way round - I guess 35 owners are secure about their choice of car. Have met a few 32 and 33 owners in 'the real world' and they have all been top lads. You allways get the odd one, especially behind a keyboard.


----------



## GTR PERFORMANCE (Oct 16, 2011)

Yes exactly u have a point there bud


----------



## Holeshot (Jun 10, 2011)

New Reg said:


> Best thing is not to feed the trolls - the comeback now will be 'I could go out tomorrow and buy one if I wanted to.'  There seem to be a few 32/33 owners who enjoy coming over in to the 35 area and stirring. Strange you never see it the other way round - I guess 35 owners are secure about their choice of car. Have met a few 32 and 33 owners in 'the real world' and they have all been top lads. You allways get the odd one, especially behind a keyboard.


 It makes such boring reading! I can't imagine how sad you would have to be to continually (feels like) post negative comments about any car.


----------



## MrGTRMan (Aug 3, 2012)

Search on YouTube "World's Greatest Drag Race". Stock GTR beats 458. 'Nuff said.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

New Reg said:


> Best thing is not to feed the trolls - the comeback now will be 'I could go out tomorrow and buy one if I wanted to.'  There seem to be a few 32/33 owners who enjoy coming over in to the 35 area and stirring. Strange you never see it the other way round - I guess 35 owners are secure about their choice of car. Have met a few 32 and 33 owners in 'the real world' and they have all been top lads. You allways get the odd one, especially behind a keyboard.


You know nothing about me and yes, I COULD go out and buy one tomorrow. I choose not to as the car does nothing for me in all honesty...i really cannot resolve the styling.
As for R35 owners not shitstirring in the Skyline section....you have GOT to be kidding me right?? i find it amusing that you think im some sort of troll or 'anti-R35' jealous Skyline owner/keyboard warrior :chuckle::chuckle: . Whatever!!:chairshot Im MORE than happy to come along to an R35 meet and discuss cars all day long.....and I will still make comment if folks start getting a bit carried away.
My point, which you are kindly proving by your posts is that R35 owners close ranks and use the 'hater' card whenever anyone comes along and says anything remotely objective on the subject of cars in general. We all have our opinions and were all entitled to them and, as such, i will continue to post up in WHATEVER section of the forum I please. Your suggestion that I refrain from posting in this section is laughable and rather pathetic :chairshot

As I have aluded to already, i think the GTR IS an accomplished car in many ways and have never suggested otherwise if you actually bother to read what i post. The point, just once more for those incapable of digesting it, is that there IS better machinery out there and, on the original subject, comparing MODIFIED GTR's to STOCK (insert supercar of choice here) is a moot point and not worth devoting time over. 

Just one more thing....all this nonsense about ' yeah, i buried a 458 (etc)' is great but did you stop to think that owner of other car might not have a clue as to how to drive it FAST!!


TT


----------



## markleach (Jun 29, 2009)

Does all this crap really matter,I just can't see why we all can't just enjoy our cars.
If you are a true car enthusiast you should be able to enjoy all the great cars out there surely it doesn't matter which one people choose to own


----------



## sw20GTS (Jul 29, 2010)

The R35 certainly responds very well to tuning and is a very capable car performance wise. Even after throwing 20k at a bog standard MY12 you will still have plenty of change compared to buying a 458 and will definitely beat the 458 performance wise - straight line speed and around a track.

However, in the end of the day, a Ferrari is still a Ferrari and a Nissan will always still be a Nissan.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

markleach said:


> Does all this crap really matter,I just can't see why we all can't just enjoy our cars.
> If you are a true car enthusiast you should be able to enjoy all the great cars out there surely it doesn't matter which one people choose to own


I agree. Im all for folks buying what makes them happy.

TT


----------



## r34mspec (May 30, 2007)

Nissan GT-R 530 HP vs Ferrari 458 Italia rematch! - YouTube

458 is defo a very quick car!!


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

r34mspec said:


> Nissan GT-R 530 HP vs Ferrari 458 Italia rematch! - YouTube
> 
> 458 is defo a very quick car!!


Do you also have one from standing start and one with a lap of the same track?  :clap:


----------



## Naranja (Dec 4, 2008)

r34mspec said:


> Nissan GT-R 530 HP vs Ferrari 458 Italia rematch! - YouTube
> 
> 458 is defo a very quick car!!


It depends entirely who has provided the car in question. If it's a Ferrari press car then it'll be considerably quicker than a customer car. It'll weigh less, will be fettled at every opportunity and they'll provide their own fuel and tyres...


----------



## KingOfTheGT-R (May 21, 2011)

r34mspec said:


> Nissan GT-R 530 HP vs Ferrari 458 Italia rematch! - YouTube
> 
> 458 is defo a very quick car!!


 Surprised the 458 won that convincingly to be honest.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

458 is faster in a straight line. Compared to a my12 GTR there is nothing in the 1/4 mile time.

458 is faster to 100 and 2 secs clear at 150mph

As the difference in performance is over 70 Mph it will be simply down to power. Most likely need a stage 4 to beat it convincingly.

Should bear in mind that a 458 really needs to rev out to make strong progress and most owners who spent 200k on a car are less inclined to do that.

The true weight of a 458 is more like 1560kgs in the specs people actually buy. I had a race with a 458 in my 640bhp E92 M3 which had been pared down to 1570kgs. I was definitely faster but it was hardly a trouncing.

My my11 at stage 1 is slower in a straight line than the m3 but faster in the real world thanks to the grip and wide torque band. Equally the gtr will be faster than. 458 in the real world for the same reason plus givens its cost and relative low running costs and reliability you will actually be inclined to use more of the potential more of the time.

Where the 458 does beat the GTR is on the sense of occasion when you drive it and that engine noise, not to mention its visual presence. No amount of modding will bridge that gap. Some ferraris are incredibly special. Take for example the 360 stradale which is slower today than perhaps even a BMW 1M. It is still today an intoxicating car to drie with a near perfect combination of power, grip, noise, looks etc. 

I love my GTR but would have a 360 stradale or a 430 scuderia tomorrow. Would I replace it with one? In my case, yes, because it is not my daily driver, but would rather have both and keep the gtr as a daily driver.

458 is IMHO too expensive and many are hideously specced.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

^^ Well said. Lot's of doubt on here about the 458. My brother's is not a "press car" and is DEFINITELY quicker than my Stage 1 - no doubt. And no my stage 1 is not a "bad" stage 1 as suggested. We have driven both back to back, with a swap of drivers.

Often when people talk about trouncing a supercar, it's because the supercar owner does not want to or can't push the car in the same way the other driver pushes the gtr.

The Gtr is a good car, but let's stop pretending it's the quickest car in the world.


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

Had a good play with a well driven 458 at Silverstone this weekend. My 650R was reeling him in down the hangar straight pretty efficiently


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred said:


> ^^ Well said. Lot's of doubt on here about the 458. My brother's is not a "press car" and is DEFINITELY quicker than my Stage 1 - no doubt. And no my stage 1 is not a "bad" stage 1 as suggested. We have driven both back to back, with a swap of drivers.
> 
> Often when people talk about trouncing a supercar, it's because the supercar owner does not want to or can't push the car in the same way the other driver pushes the gtr.
> 
> The Gtr is a good car, but let's stop pretending it's the quickest car in the world.


Exactly right, but this has always been the way of the world. Same when the Cosworth came out all those years ago.

The reality is that few people can afford exotica, but many can afford the GTR and go nearly as quickly or even quicker depending on their state of tune.

So what. That's about where the comparison ends as they are totally chalk and cheese vehicles.

If it comes to power/grip/capability, the McLaren MP4-12c is a massively tough car to beat. That's a car that manages many of the GTR's capabilities (but faster/quicker) with the looks of a 458.

It would be far more interesting to hear from people who CAN afford both, and why they chose one or the other - though I think you'll find those who afford both either hate the GTR (as it's chav and beneath them) or are proper petrol heads and have BOTH!


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> If it comes to power/grip/capability, the McLaren MP4-12c is a massively tough car to beat. That's a car that manages many of the GTR's capabilities (but faster/quicker) with the looks of a 458.


Only on a dry smooth peice of road or track that allows a high average speed. 

That is the limitation of old world RWD Mid engined supercars.

In any other condition, the GTR is the more capable and usable car.

It's not what some people want to hear, it's harsh but it's true.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> Only on a dry smooth peice of road or track that allows a high average speed.
> 
> That is the limitation of old world RWD Mid engined supercars.
> 
> ...



I think you'll find unless it is utterly atrocious conditions you are not correct, and I would hardly call a McLaren MP4-12c old world!!

If you are talking about road cars, then you can't realise the capabilities of any car in reality, and a good diesel 4x4 will make just as good progress as the GTR on most give and take roads.

You can only use the full performance of a GTR on a track, same as any "supercar".


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

The Gallardo LP 560 is a quicker point to point car in my opinion. It's certainly quicker in "atrocious" conditions.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Quite possibly for some drivers - sure the R8 V10 is very competent too.

I'm also sure that a very good driver in an "old school rwd" will show a clean pair of heels to an average driver in the GTR.

I think the point is its that in reality it is all subjective, and there is no such thing as a "best" car, though many would say in round terms as usable super cars go, the 458 is there or thereabouts, when you factor all the things that should make a super car as opposed to just a fast car - which does include looks, materials, build quality, history etc.

I'm one of those people that doesn't really care about any of that. I bought a new 360 Stradale once, and loved it - and yes, would have one again and have owned lots of race and road cars over the years. The GTR is one of my very favourites in its on-road capabilities. It's single defining attribute for me is it's ability to use all 4 wheels so effectively without creating a completely anodyne driving experience. There are other cars that can do that (997 Turbo for example), but I'm just not a Porsche person.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> I think you'll find unless it is utterly atrocious conditions you are not correct, and I would hardly call a McLaren MP4-12c old world!!


The McLaren is old-world, it is derived from old 1960's Colin Chapman's/Lotus theories of compact mass packaging and low weight. 

It's great for a skilled 5 foot 2 racing driver on a hot summer's day in a FIA regulated track, sucks balls when it comes to getting from A-B quickly and with minimal fatigue for most people (people who chat on forums for example) where you have no control over the road conditions or the weather. 





Blade said:


> If you are talking about road cars, then you can't realise the capabilities of any car in reality, and a good diesel 4x4 will make just as good progress as the GTR on most give and take roads.
> 
> You can only use the full performance of a GTR on a track, same as any "supercar".


Really? I didn't know any 4x4 Diesel will go round corners and brake just as good as a GTR indescriminately of driver skill and situation, and also provide the same sort of satisfaction of driving to boot?

Learn something new everyday!


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> I'm also sure that a very good driver in an "old school rwd" will show a clean pair of heels to an average driver in the GTR.


And a very good driver in a Honda Civic Type R will embarass an average driver in a Mclaren.

In fact, I would say an average driver in a Civic Type R will beat a skilled driver in a MP4-12C from one end of the UK to the other.

Why is this? Because the Civic was built for the roads, and not around closed circuit racing needs.

GTR would make mince meat of both in that challenge.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

No one said anything about satisfaction, and I am talking about give and take roads with traffic, stop signs etc. 

Sure if you are in the black mountains with no traffic, or willing to break the law, then you'll make significantly better progress.

If anything, the 4x4 is likely to be nicer and simpler as there is nothing more frustrating than a GTR or any high powered plodding along at slow speeds.

Doesn't even need to be a 4x4 diesel for that matter - and there are plenty of diesels with GTR rivalling torque.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> And a very good driver in a Honda Civic Type R will embarass an average driver in a Mclaren.
> 
> In fact, I would say an average driver in a Civic Type R will beat a skilled driver in a MP4-12C from one end of the UK to the other.
> 
> ...



Sorry, you are now talking rubbish. I own a Civic Type R same spec as the M20, and it's great. I've also driven an MP4-12c and you clearly have not. It is so compliant it is unreal, with a limo like feel that allows it to exploit difficult roads. It's an extremely capable road car, yet also an amazing car on a track. Don't think it's something that skates off the road at a moments notice.

The Type R is hard as nails, even with the revised Mugen suspension that definitely compromises its grip. It's slow in a straight line (actually really slow). Where it's good is in tight, twisty corners where it feels light, fun and fast in a similar vein to any good hot hatch. The solid rear axle does it no favours in the comfort department, and the GTR feels positively luxurious over bumps in comparison to the Type R.

The Type R has hardly any torque requiring you to rev its nuts off to achieve good progress, with constant gear changing - great on a circuit.

Also there are a fair few roads I know of where the Type R will give the GTR a hard time where they are just so tight and twisty that size and weight are the advantage, not power. It's one of the reasons the Type R is often used as a Rally car.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Try an Integra Type R (DC2), epic car.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred said:


> Try an Integra Type R (DC2), epic car.


Or the FD2 as opposed to FN2, even more epic I think... Way off topic now though


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Blade said:


> Or the FD2 as opposed to FN2, even more epic I think... Way off topic now though


Is it really? Never driven one, but I do think the DC2 is the best fwd car I have driven, including the R26R. Not the quickest one, but the most fun and interactive. How does the FD2 compare?


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

I was very lucky to be driven in a McLaren Mp4-12c by a mate who previously had a 550bhp 2009 GTR35.

He loved the GTR35 - it embarrassed a lot of more expensive supercars on the road - just as GTRs have done since the GTR32!

Blade is spot on re the McLaren - the ride was better than many luxury saloons and we went pretty quickly in the damp conditions, so Sidious, you really need to have been in one before coming to a conclusion how they drive.

He now has a 360 Stradale and although being the oldest and slowest, and I haven't asked him, but I think that is his favourite of the three.

I also agree that some of the GTR32/33/34 owners do have a pop at the 35 owners for not being true enthusiasts and for that I can only apologise.

Whilst I love my GTR32, I can apprciate different tastes & points if view and the GTR35 owners I met all seemed genuinely enthusiastic about all performance cars.

Cheers,


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

markM3 said:


> I was very lucky to be driven in a McLaren Mp4-12c by a mate who previously had a 550bhp 2009 GTR35.
> 
> He loved the GTR35 - it embarrassed a lot of more expensive supercars on the road - just as GTRs have done since the GTR32!
> 
> ...


Interesting about the 360! It is truly fantastic. I actually went and drove one the day after picking up my GTR, having now owned one for nearly 6 years.

It was utterly awesome, on the road in the middle of February, on semi-slicks. It is still a very fast car, but you need to carry a lot of speed in it to stay anywhere near a GTR.

What really surprised me was that they felt like they had something in common, namely the clunking/clanking of the gear box and the overall "mechanical" feel to both cars.

I resisted buying it... still am! It's interesting that many people still see the 360 Stradale as far better than the superior 430 Scuderia (a much faster car) - because of the _way_ the Stradale delivers the experience to you is the near perfect blend.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> No one said anything about satisfaction, and I am talking about give and take roads with traffic, stop signs etc.
> 
> Sure if you are in the black mountains with no traffic, or willing to break the law, then you'll make significantly better progress.


It's not just these selective black mountains you speak off, there are hundreds of B-roads, A-roads, night time out of hours driving opportunities where traffic is little and nothing goes on to drive more than 30 mph. 

Such roads vary in surface quality and have characteristics that would make 6 figure supercars look daft, and then you add in your weather considerations - a light RWD supercar will simply not cut the mustard in the grand scheme of things when it comes to 365 days a week usability.



Blade said:


> If anything, the 4x4 is likely to be nicer and simpler as there is nothing more frustrating than a GTR or any high powered plodding along at slow speeds.
> 
> Doesn't even need to be a 4x4 diesel for that matter - and there are plenty of diesels with GTR rivalling torque.


All irrelevent. Slow traffic and stop start commuting is a reality that hits everyone and in any car. I am not interested in discussing which car is better to be stuck in traffic in.


----------



## woundedgoat (Oct 7, 2012)

Interesting read, and although I would jump at the chance for a 458, double the deposit and double the monthly theoretical payments, its hopefully 4-5 years off, maybe never lol!

I am more than in love with my 2012 GTR and having it only for just over 2 weeks have had a play with a few cars on road and I am more than happy with stock performance.

I have seen a few videos comparing various cars and a few have pitted the 458 and the GTR against each other and quite a few I have seen, seem to judge the GTR quicker than the 458.

Heres an interesting one, 

Drag Race of the year 2011 ! - YouTube 

and the GTR is a MY11, I maybe wrong and would stand corrected but I presume a MY12 would do even better???

Any way just throwing in my tuppence :chuckle:


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> Sorry, you are now talking rubbish. I own a Civic Type R same spec as the M20, and it's great. I've also driven an MP4-12c and you clearly have not. It is so compliant it is unreal, with a limo like feel that allows it to exploit difficult roads. It's an extremely capable road car, yet also an amazing car on a track. Don't think it's something that skates off the road at a moments notice.


You probably driven one, once, somewhere, so what? Have you driven it every day, driven it say for 100-200 miles continious?, driven it in the rain, frost or snow? on roads that are 1.5 car widths wide with undulations more than 2 cm in height?

Probably not. 

McLaren's road compliance is mainly to do with the modern digressive dampers and its fault masking of what is going on with the tyres and the road surface. And that is only so the driver can cope with getting it out of his garage and to the local motorway or idyllic peice of road where it can be used. 

Like all other mid engined supercars, they are too low, too limited in steering angle, too wide and belong on big smooth roads on a sunny day to allow them to stretch their legs. The RWD underpinnings means you have to be very careful with apply throttle on exit, where as a nice GTR will rocket out of one leaving you in its wake. 

Anything else and they are just wide vulgar attention seeking objects and make no progress over a proper Grand tourer or a hot hatch - 

...the amusing thing I might add is these lesser cars such as these Civics, GTRs and what not would have to slow down and give these midengined RWD supercars a wide berth so the playboy driver can try to accelerate away while it tank slaps itself to 100 mph.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> You probably driven one, once, somewhere, so what? Have you driven it every day, driven it say for 100-200 miles continious?, driven it in the rain, frost or snow? on roads that are 1.5 car widths wide with undulations more than 2 cm in height?
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> ...


Yawn - you have an extremely blinkered view of motoring and it appears tinged with jealousy, hence your reference to "playboys".


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

markM3 said:


> Blade is spot on re the McLaren - the ride was better than many luxury saloons and we went pretty quickly in the damp conditions, so Sidious, you really need to have been in one before coming to a conclusion how they drive.


Modern luxury RWD saloons riding on 20 inch rims with 30 profile runflats is a bench mark for high performance usability LOL, get outta ere! :smokin:

We need to be careful not to confuse "damp conditions" with varying road surface type/quality, we should not confuse comfort with how a wheel deals with undulations and how much the wheel travel the suspension actually works within, and dont confuse damper quality and comfort with real actual loaded contact to the road. 

McLaren does a good job polishing up a principally archaic, dated undrivable and unusable concept for the snobby big ego'd racing car wannabees into a safe to use product, but even they have their limitations.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> Yawn - you have an extremely blinkered view of motoring and it appears tinged with jealousy, hence your reference to "playboys".


LOL

I would rate cars like the Lexus LFA or the Ferrari F12 far far better high end car - designed to be used all the time on the road. :smokin:


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> Modern luxury RWD saloons riding on 20 inch rims with 30 profile runflats is a bench mark for high performance usability LOL, get outta ere! :smokin:
> 
> We need to be careful not to confuse "damp conditions" with varying road surface type/quality, we should not confuse comfort with how a wheel deals with undulations and how much the wheel travel the suspension actually works within, and dont confuse damper quality and comfort with real actual loaded contact to the road.
> 
> McLaren does a good job polishing up a principally archaic, dated undrivable and unusable concept for the snobby big ego'd racing car wannabees into a safe to use product, but even they have their limitations.


The Mclarens capabilities are not down to damper quality. It has adaptive suspension and uses special hydraulic lines instead of fixed anti-roll bars. This coupled with the electronics ensures flexibility and roll when you need it and stiffness when you need it. This is very effective and maximise tyre contact to the road in all conditions and undulations.

They also use torque vectoring for managing grip on all the wheels too.

Once again, you really cannot stick the McLaren into the massively generalised pot of "mid-engine rwd cars". That's like calling the GTR an automatic for Pete's sake.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Sidious said:


> You probably driven one, once, somewhere, so what? Have you driven it every day, driven it say for 100-200 miles continious?, driven it in the rain, frost or snow? on roads that are 1.5 car widths wide with undulations more than 2 cm in height?
> 
> Probably not.


Maybe the question should be whether you have ever driven one so that we can see if your view is informed or not?


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> LOL
> 
> I would rate cars like the Lexus LFA or the Ferrari F12 far far better high end car - designed to be used all the time on the road. :smokin:


So was the McLaren!!!

As for the Lexus - that's an extremely high revving engine meant to ape the V10s of that Formula 1 era. 

Both the MP4-12c and the 458 are meant to be daily drivers, not weekend polish cars. I know LOTS of people that use them for daily drivers, none of which are the rich playboys you seem to have pictured in your mind.

The LFA is twice the cost of a McLaren or 458, and the F12 properly specced will be heading towards £300k also.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred said:


> Maybe the question should be whether you have ever driven one so that we can see if your view is informed or not?


No, he's just someone who doesn't want to lose an argument and believes the GTR really is the best car in the world, and anything more expensive must be inferior, slower, and so expensive only playboys would buy them as they would have to be total show offs as those cars can't have any engineering merit... unless of course they are ridiculously expensive and rare (LFA/F12), and guaranteed that no one here would have driven those so couldn't possibly comment


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Blade, step back.

You are entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. 

Sidious,

You strike me as having clear well reasoned arguments based entirely on a lack of knowledge of the technology and a lack of experience of the cars which you criticise.

No offence, but I'm more inclined to listen to the guy on the thread who owns a GTR, has owned several of the mid engine super cars to which you refer and also owns a Honda civic type-R to which you also refer. Surprisingly he's also extensively driven the McLaren that you seem to be admonishing!

When you sum it up in that way, do you seriously think your keyboard opinions will have any merit by comparison?


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Hey Adam, everyone's entitled to an opinion and I have no problem with that.

I can't abide when people have a blinkered view that is not based on fact or anything empirical at all, and then amplifying said incorrect opinion with stereotypical views of owners of such cars.

You are right though - I'll step back because all that's really happening here is a huge derailing of this thread.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Personally I think the thread was derailed when someone compared a GTR to a 458 in a drag race.

Kind of ignores the merits of both cars.


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

Sidious said:


> LOL
> 
> I would rate cars like the Lexus LFA or the Ferrari F12 far far better high end car - designed to be used all the time on the road. :smokin:


You talk absolute bull and are screwed over with your willy waving competition. Stop being jealous and stop talking utter shite. 

I for one am a person you can qualify which is better, faster, more usable, sense of occasion. 

My 458 is very capable and was only out on the frosty Sunday morning just gone and the 458 was more than handling it's own. My gtr was actually a handful round tight dry bends I might add. 

Overall it is down to confidence. You have more confidence to boot the gtr than you do the 458 where you need to feed in the power. Would I swap the 458 back for a gtr? No

Don't get me wrong I loved my stage 4 but the 458 is the ultimate.

But overall my gtr experience was awesome and loved every second of ownership.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> The Mclarens capabilities are not down to damper quality. It has adaptive suspension and uses special hydraulic lines instead of fixed anti-roll bars. This coupled with the electronics ensures flexibility and roll when you need it and stiffness when you need it. This is very effective and maximise tyre contact to the road in all conditions and undulations.
> 
> They also use torque vectoring for managing grip on all the wheels too.
> 
> Once again, you really cannot stick the McLaren into the massively generalised pot of "mid-engine rwd cars". That's like calling the GTR an automatic for Pete's sake.


Um yes, adaptive -active suspension , minimal body roll, yadda yadda, all very good for higher laterial G and peak cornering speeds on track, adaptive suspension does not increase wheel travel, unsprung mass response nor changes load variations , important stuff for a car that can cope with various conditions.

Still too low, too wide, too pokey and you have to be very selective on when top apply throttle like every RWD supercar out there.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Adamantium said:


> Blade, step back.
> 
> You are entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
> 
> ...


People who claimed to have driven supercars like the Mp4 have not driven them enough , not far enough, not on enough types of roads and conditions to really convince me that such a low, wide and cramped 2 seater is anything over than a 50 mile summer sunday plaything.

Someone with a 200 hp golf gti will claim his car will outhandle and out corner my car, i may not have driven such a specific beast but the physics of FWD and a high CoG tells me it will behave like every other hot hatch out there.


----------



## Naranja (Dec 4, 2008)

Adamantium said:


> Blade, step back.
> 
> You are entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


That, is just...funny!


----------



## bladerider (Jun 29, 2002)

Satan said:


> Its more than relevant if you do the comparison on purchase price or bang for buck.


You'll agree my mates T88 equipped 2JZ soarer worth about fifty quid is better than your gtr then !!

lol

Who cares if you got a 650r and your mate has a 458, I suspect you're both such a pair of homos you spend all your time cybering each other rather than driving them anyway !!

Get an old Evo and enter the MLR sprint series or something similar and then you will realise that internet heroes arent worth chatting about !!


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> So was the McLaren!!!
> 
> As for the Lexus - that's an extremely high revving engine meant to ape the V10s of that Formula 1 era.
> 
> ...


Sorry I missed this post earlier.

The LFA costs 2 x that of the McLaren or a 458 simply because it is at least twice the car. 

Not many cars can be built with such fuss and attention to detail, and perform so well (for a RWD car  ) on the road and yet remain dainty and civilised in physical form - all in one package.

It doesn't need to have an engine in the middle, or require the driver to sit in the female missionary position to enjoy fast driving.

So people try to play the jealousy card because one dares to want different things and not accept overpriced impractical trinkets, what is there to be jealous of? That Japan has produced fast and exciting cars on various budget levels that offer 'another way' so the driver can enjoy the car more often and with far less fuss?

What's the difference between a Civic Type R and Lexus LF-A? By concept, they are the same, usable, reliable and doesn't make a big deal about getting into a car and driving wherever you feel like it day to day! :smokin:

What's the difference between a Lotus Elise and a McLaren F1? By concept they are the same! Makes a huge deal of trying to get inside, selecting the right day, road, for the right planets to align before you decide to drive it do you need to be given praise and applaud for achieving this? Isn't it embarrassing? :bawling: :lamer:


HTH


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

baileyconstruct said:


> You talk absolute bull and are screwed over with your willy waving competition. Stop being jealous and stop talking utter shite.
> 
> I for one am a person you can qualify which is better, faster, more usable, sense of occasion.


baileyconstruct, you are incredible.

I don't really care what you think of your 458 or GTR, they both do not appeal to me but I can praise the GTR's technical merits which is what I am doing.

I could never be jealous of someone who brags to strangers about the cars he owns behind a computer. :lamer:


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Blade said:


> No, he's just someone who doesn't want to lose an argument and believes the GTR really is the best car in the world, and anything more expensive must be inferior, slower, and so expensive only playboys would buy them as they would have to be total show offs as those cars can't have any engineering merit... unless of course they are ridiculously expensive and rare (LFA/F12), and guaranteed that no one here would have driven those so couldn't possibly comment


Agreed!! His viewpoint seems extremely blinkered. Any mention of another car being 'better' and the excuses roll out one after the other.

Sad really...

Blade, you seem to be a chap, like myself, who has a more pragmatic view of cars and relative performance. A breath of fresh air :thumbsup:

TT


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

Sidious said:


> baileyconstruct, you are incredible.
> 
> I don't really care what you think of your 458 or GTR, they both do not appeal to me but I can praise the GTR's technical merits which is what I am doing.
> 
> I could never be jealous of someone who brags to strangers about the cars he owns behind a computer. :lamer:


You bore me and obviously have no friends. If none of the discussion cars appeal to you then why not piss off to your own section and talk about how you have the fastest car in the world :blahblah:

I am sure most of the gtr owners on here find you with lack of knowledge and in somewhat an overall knob. End of rant


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Sidious said:


> baileyconstruct, you are incredible.
> 
> I don't really care what you think of your 458 or GTR, they both do not appeal to me but I can praise the GTR's technical merits which is what I am doing.
> 
> I could never be jealous of someone who brags to strangers about the cars he owns behind a computer. :lamer:


*Yawn*
Baileyconstruct was giving a balanced view of both cars from EXPERIENCE!!! Now that's not pub talk, rumour or 'my mate says'...its REAL experience put down in words. Its a sad day when folks jealousy of others takes over and spills onto the keyboard. It makes you look like a Grade A tool.

Besides, I dint read anything that remotely sounded like bragging.....

TT


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

baileyconstruct said:


> You bore me and obviously have no friends. If none of the discussion cars appeal to you then why not piss off to your own section and talk about how you have the fastest car in the world :blahblah:
> 
> I am sure most of the gtr owners on here find you with lack of knowledge and in somewhat an overall knob. End of rant


Out of interest, what spec of 458 did you go for? Seen some lovely, and some absolutely hideous specs!


----------



## woundedgoat (Oct 7, 2012)

Hey Bailey,


I myself would like to congratulate you on your latest purchase, and fair play to you, I noticed whilst looking for my GTR, that you had to be pushed to announce your getting a 458 and at no point boasted about it, but surely someone who can buy any car like a GTR or a 458 or any other should just by it for themselves.

But this is a burning question, in a race what's faster? GTR or 458 lol!

Also I would like to say I'm fully aware of the benefits of Ferrari ownership!


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I can't believe we are still feeding this idiot. Is there a block function?


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> Agreed!! His viewpoint seems extremely blinkered. Any mention of another car being 'better' and the excuses roll out one after the other.
> 
> Sad really...
> 
> ...


Indeed! I don't believe anyone who says any car is the "best". An ideal garage would have several cars in it for different occasions.

I've owned pretty much everything, and despite what Sidious thinks, did 10k miles in a year in my 360 stradale in all weathers, all situations, even snow, on semi-slick tyres and it was awesome every time. I still curse myself for selling it.

Even my 640bhp E92 M3 was perfectly happy in the horrific snow we had two winters back - on snow tyres of course, but it was able to go where by wifes Q7 could not!!!

I see merit in most cars - god, I even like the Panamera!


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

tarmac terror said:


> *Yawn*
> Baileyconstruct was giving a balanced view of both cars from EXPERIENCE!!! Now that's not pub talk, rumour or 'my mate says'...its REAL experience put down in words. Its a sad day when folks jealousy of others takes over and spills onto the keyboard. It makes you look like a prat.
> 
> Besides, I dint read anything that remotely sounded like bragging.....
> ...


Thanks TT. I am not one to brag about my cars. 

I am the first to admit when people ask me "is our new car faster than your gtr" and I always so no. In my eyes it isn't.

My balanced opinion is that the GTR is an awesome bit of kit and if I didn't think so I would say. 

And sidious, your idea that the LFA is the ultimate and is comparable to a civic type r is ridiculous And shows your idiotic train of thought. LFA is the same as a civic type r ha ha ha:chuckle:


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

woundedgoat said:


> Hey Bailey,
> 
> 
> I myself would like to congratulate you on your latest purchase, and fair play to you, I noticed whilst looking for my GTR, that you had to be pushed to announce your getting a 458 and at no point boasted about it, but surely someone who can buy any car like a GTR or a 458 or any other should just by it for themselves.
> ...


To be honest stage 4 GTR. You should book on the welsh runway day the Adam is organising. It will be a right hoot with GTR's of all kinds going against other marques.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> *Yawn*
> Baileyconstruct was giving a balanced view of both cars from EXPERIENCE!!! Now that's not pub talk, rumour or 'my mate says'...its REAL experience put down in words. Its a sad day when folks jealousy of others takes over and spills onto the keyboard. It makes you look like a Grade A tool.
> 
> Besides, I dint read anything that remotely sounded like bragging.....
> ...


It's only just dawned on me that he doesn't even have an R35 GTR!

This guy really is special. He still doesn't understand how the Mclaren's suspension works either. He thinks it's active dampers the pillock.

The only other car that had something similair as far as I can recall was the RS6 (previous gen I think) but nowhere near as sophisticated. 

With all the talk of the Mclaren, I don't actually care for it much, definitely would have the 458 over that. It's just insane for someone to stick all mid-engined RWD cars into an undriveable bracket. Certainly front-engined/rwd is a difficult recipe (although BMW do a very good job of that), but having the engine in the middle gives you the ability to get a low c of g and ideal weight balance for handling, and maximising rear grip thanks to the slight rear weight bias.

The R35 only seems to use the front wheels when you are in "trouble", being in the main a rwd drive car, albeit with a front weight bias (though better than most).

Anyway, as Adam says, no point fuelling this guy as it's not adding anything to this thread at all.


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

Blade said:


> It's only just dawned on me that he doesn't even have an R35 GTR!
> 
> This guy really is special. He still doesn't understand how the Mclaren's suspension works either. He thinks it's active dampers the pillock.
> 
> ...


I agree. I for one prefer to have an adult discussion with other enthusiasts and owners. Not into my car is better and all that.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> People who claimed to have driven supercars like the Mp4 have not driven them enough , not far enough, not on enough types of roads and conditions to really convince me that such a low, wide and cramped 2 seater is anything over than a 50 mile summer sunday plaything.
> 
> Someone with a 200 hp golf gti will claim his car will outhandle and out corner my car, i may not have driven such a specific beast but the physics of FWD and a high CoG tells me it will behave like every other hot hatch out there.


Lol - driving one isn't enough now - we need to own one. Well my 360 Stradale is effectively a race-car for the road, is low, wide (not cramped, none of them are these days).

After running it in I drove it for 3000 miles straight, taking in Spa, Silverstone and Brands Hatch en-route. Never missed a beat. Used it for commuting, shopping, everything. I've seen 9 year old cars with less mileage on than I did in my first year.

I've owned, driven and raced all sorts. I've tuned cars beyond imagination, built a race car from scratch including fabricating many components, and run a race team. 

I love the GTR but hate people who are blinded by its competence and dismiss other marques as a result.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

baileyconstruct said:


> I agree. I for one prefer to have an adult discussion with other enthusiasts and owners. Not into my car is better and all that.


Did you go straight for the 458 or try a few other things?


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

Blade said:


> Did you go straight for the 458 or try a few other things?


I tried 12c first but heart was with 458. 

To be honest I was happy keeping my GTR and it was just a spur thing. I went to London for a weekend and saw the mclaren dealership and then that was it down hill from there. 

I do miss my GTR from time to time and do hang round with some members on another forum who have them. Ian C is one who has a stage 4 with arkro exhaust which is a quick car and we did have a little go on motorway which he pulled away from me.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

baileyconstruct said:


> I tried 12c first but heart was with 458.
> 
> To be honest I was happy keeping my GTR and it was just a spur thing. I went to London for a weekend and saw the mclaren dealership and then that was it down hill from there.
> 
> I do miss my GTR from time to time and do hang round with some members on another forum who have them. Ian C is one who has a stage 4 with arkro exhaust which is a quick car and we did have a little go on motorway which he pulled away from me.


Sounds about right. Once on the move, power makes the difference and the stage 4 would have had a good 50 or so bhp on you with a bigger torque spread.

It's really irrelevant though. I love my GTR because I love technology, and things like Transformers - and I feel the GTR is in that camp. My number plate ends UFO as I think to a certain extent the GTR has capabilities entirely alien to other cars. 

A Ferrari is entirely different - you can look at it for hours, without having to touch it or drive it. Simply sitting in it, and pootling up the road is still awesome. The fact it goes fast and handles well is almost to be expected, but I think the sense of occasion driving it is the bit that really took me by surprise.

It is one of the things I feel a Porsche lacks, but whilst an Aston is not that good dynamically (relative to the cars we are talking about), it does have a fantastic sense of occasion.

I'm not sure about the Mclaren really. It sort of feels like it is trying to hard to be a better 458. I don't think Mclaren have yet got a real identity in the same way that Porsche, Lambo, Aston and Ferrari do. Same as the R8 really. The V10 is magnificent but strangely does not excite me at all despite it being truly every day usable, very fast, very pretty etc. Something is missing. It's funny that the Mclaren owners I do know argue in its defence much in the same way that GTR owners do to other supercar owners "It isn't boring, it isn't anodyne, it isn't like a playstation"... etc.! The world is full of biggots and none more than those behind the wheel. When I got the GTR, I tossed the keys to one of my colleagues and said "off you go". A Porsche man through-and-through with an eye on a Ferrari, he came back full of superlatives about what it did, ending up with the inevitable "I could never own one" - implication of it being too chav for him. That, frankly, only endeared me to the GTR more!

I would never chose a car based on price! Witness the Type R (ok, it's a special one) - but still a cheap Honda hot hatch, very chav and very ricey.

I love it!


On paper, the GTR should be anodyne. A bit like the Mclaren, Nissan trying too hard to be a better 911 turbo. It isn't though. Whether by design or by intent, it is not like any other car I've driven. It isn't a big EVO, it's nothing like the 911, an M3, an M5 or any of the supercars. It's different, it's flawed, and its flaws do give it its character.

I think in an ideal world there would be garage space for both the GTR and the 458.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2003)




----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Blade said:


> A Ferrari is entirely different - you can look at it for hours, without having to touch it or drive it. Simply sitting in it, and pootling up the road is still awesome. The fact it goes fast and handles well is almost to be expected, but I think the sense of occasion driving it is the bit that really took me by surprise.


Agreed. Had the pleasure of thrashing a 458 around Thruxton the other month....what an utterly fantastic car. Just looking at it is a event...the car is a beauty from all angles. This beauty translates on the track too. Behind the wheel, it doesnt really matter if it isnt the fastest thing on 4 wheels, the sense of occasion is simply overwhelming and exhilarating in the extreme.

A fantastic motor vehicle...

TT


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

baileyconstruct said:


> You bore me and obviously have no friends. If none of the discussion cars appeal to you then why not piss off to your own section and talk about how you have the fastest car in the world :blahblah:
> 
> I am sure most of the gtr owners on here find you with lack of knowledge and in somewhat an overall knob. End of rant


If I bore you, then the easiest thing to do is to not reply to my posts - if you want to talk about your 458 or GTR shenanigans, do so aimed at someone else, just refrain from quoting my posts and accusing me of being jealous when neither of your cars appeal to me and I made no comments about them. 

What does appeal to me at the moment (I might get bored later) is to get people (whether they agree or disagree) to discuss as technically and logically as possible about the merits of the big heavy V6 GTR and why you don't need mid engined, middle-weight RWD non-sense (such as the 458 and MP4-12C) in today's world to get enjoy high performance driving, the very core of the discussion is we have 2 very different cars - yet somehow they warrant a discussion and comparison. 

One is the better road car, the other just makes people feel they are better.


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

tarmac terror said:


> Agreed. Had the pleasure of thrashing a 458 around Thruxton the other month....what an utterly fantastic car. Just looking at it is a event...the car is a beauty from all angles. This beauty translates on the track too. Behind the wheel, it doesnt really matter if it isnt the fastest thing on 4 wheels, the sense of occasion is simply overwhelming and exhilarating in the extreme.
> 
> A fantastic motor vehicle...
> 
> TT


In terms of thrashing do you mean driving one or racing against one?


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> Lol - driving one isn't enough now - we need to own one. Well my 360 Stradale is effectively a race-car for the road, is low, wide (not cramped, none of them are these days).


I find it amusing that people who defend impractical supercars have only driven them in very selective circumstances, (dealer test drive, borrowed from mate, red letter supercar days, driven fast between roundabouts in Milton Keynes at 2 am in the morning etc etc)



Blade said:


> After running it in I drove it for 3000 miles straight, taking in Spa, Silverstone and Brands Hatch en-route. Never missed a beat. Used it for commuting, shopping, everything. I've seen 9 year old cars with less mileage on than I did in my first year.


To get to Brands Hatch, you take the M20 or take the A20 (both are long smooth straight roads) 

To get to Silverstone, you take the M40 which I recall is a long piece of road.

You managed to drive a road legal car to the shops sometimes as well between all that? 

What a testament to the F360's high performance usability!  :bowdown1: 




Blade said:


> I've owned, driven and raced all sorts. I've tuned cars beyond imagination, built a race car from scratch including fabricating many components, and run a race team.


Irrelevant! Asserting racing credentials or pretensions has very little value to offer when discussing real road cars vs cars pretending to be race cars whilst they exist on the road. 



Blade said:


> I love the GTR but hate people who are blinded by its competence and dismiss other marques as a result.


Don't succumb to hate, embrace the difference in perspective that others have. :smokin:


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I find it amusing that people who defend impractical supercars have only driven them in very selective circumstances, (dealer test drive, borrowed from mate, red letter supercar days, driven fast between roundabouts in Milton Keynes at 2 am in the morning etc etc)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't have a difference in perspective, just complete myopia.

As it happens, to get to Silverstone I go through all the back roads and the M40 for a single junction. As for credentials - you have absolutely none as you appear to have neither driven nor owned any of the cars, so why on earth does you perspective have any relevance whatsoever? It doesn't. You are adding nothing to this thread, other than enjoying the sound of your own keys clattering. My experience is entirely relevant as I have driven and owned many of the types of cars discussed (not the 458 though) and driven them under all kinds of circumstances. I've also instructed people professionally in all sorts of cars.

I'm not sure you've left your bedroom yet in an attempt to flex your virtual muscles. I'd have a modicum of respect if you actually came out with any facts, based on any actual experience or ownership.

All you do is rubbish everyone elses ownership and experiences.

So tell me - what WOULD impress you then? Oh yeh, forgot - an LFA or an F12


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Sidious said:


> To get to Brands Hatch, you take the M20 or take the A20 (both are long smooth straight roads)
> 
> To get to Silverstone, you take the M40 which I recall is a long piece of road.
> 
> ...


You could easily take that example and and substitute 360 (the 360 WASN'T designated 'F') for GTR, or ANY high performance car.




Baileyconstruct said:


> In terms of thrashing do you mean driving one or racing against one?


No, not racing . However I WAS exploring the performance/handling envelope to the best of my, limited, ability!!

TT


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> You could easily take that example and and substitute 360 (the 360 WASN'T designated 'F') for GTR, or ANY high performance car.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny you talk about Thruxton. Scary place. First ever race I did was there. I took my ARDS test literally a couple of days before there, partly to get some experience of the track, and my co-driver instructed there also.

I remember vividly being interviewed by Sky TV who were covering the race as they were amused that it was my first ever race, in one of the fastest series in the UK, on what is widely considered the fastest and most dangerous circuit to race on. They just laughed!

I sat in the pits crapping myself and wishing it wasn't happening. I don't know if it was fate, luck or what - but the co-drive brought the car in with a broken coil pack. Race over before it began! I was so relieved! Goodwood, Coombe and Thruxton are old-school.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

LOL, Goodwood, Thruxton and Coombe are all pretty local to me...unfortunately I cant see the Skyline ever hitting Thruxton as they are rather strict on what can and can't be taken on track (which is surprising!!). I think though that they are more than content to run the business on 'experience days' and BTCC..which obviously works for them.

I think Coombe will be my venue of convenience TBH. Its (relatively) local and quite challenging to master which will be enjoyable. Just need to get this R32 fighting fit first :chuckle:

TT


----------



## rob wild (Jul 30, 2007)

tarmac terror said:


> I think Coombe will be my venue of convenience TBH. Its (relatively) local and quite challenging to master which will be enjoyable. Just need to get this R32 fighting fit first :chuckle:
> 
> TT


Why don't you buy a R35 GTR? LOL I'm sure there will be many going cheap after this thread 

A good mate of mine has got himself a 32 again (fully stripped track going) and were doing Cadwell park in the spring, now there will be a comparison! Looking forward to it


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

rob wild said:


> Why don't you buy a R35 GTR? LOL I'm sure there will be many going cheap after this thread
> 
> A good mate of mine has got himself a 32 again (fully stripped track going) and were doing Cadwell park in the spring, now there will be a comparison! Looking forward to it


Cadwell - Awesome circuit.


----------



## woundedgoat (Oct 7, 2012)

baileyconstruct said:


> To be honest stage 4 GTR. You should book on the welsh runway day the Adam is organising. It will be a right hoot with GTR's of all kinds going against other marques.



I saw a post about that day, sounds awesome, I will def put my name down on that, I didnt want to until I actually had ownership.

Will you be bringing the 458? Part of me wants to see one in that kind of environment but part of me doesn't, as I know I will want one big time!

My car is stock and I'm sure will be trounced by many a modded GTR, but what really appeals to me is giving it some with out worrying about the police :clap:


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

rob wild said:


> Why don't you buy a R35 GTR? LOL I'm sure there will be many going cheap after this thread
> 
> A good mate of mine has got himself a 32 again (fully stripped track going) and were doing Cadwell park in the spring, now there will be a comparison! Looking forward to it


LOL, I can see the post title now......."*shock* Stage 10 GTR beats track-prepped R32!!" :chuckle::chuckle:

I'd be interested to take an R35 on track and see what it can do. Had one out on the road a while back but that's a different environment entirely! I do rate the GTR as a performance car...it's impossible not to. Its made a decent reputation for itself which is to be applauded in all fairness. The missus and I were seriously considering a GTR when the time came to move out of our E46 M3 but it was primarily the look of the car which neither of us could really get over TBH. It's styling is very polarising and I guess I sit on the 'other' side of the fence.

I think in time, as the cars become older and folks start ripping them apart to make dedicated track weapon's then we will see the car come into its own. The tuning industry is already going nuts for the GTR and it would be good to think that it will still be as prevalent in years to come. Hell, companies are still producing innovative stuff for the Skyline GTR's after 20-odd years so if the GTR can command the same following, it'll be doing alright.

:thumbsup:

TT


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> All you do is rubbish everyone elses ownership and experiences.


I do not rubbish people's ownership and experiences, I firstly reject statements that are irreverent to the topic and express again that I am just not convinced that mid engined RWD cars have any longevity and relevance on the road in the context of usable high performance - because the laws of physics in 2012 has not changed - it was still the same in 1987 where the F40 and Countach were dangerous cars that could not really ever be driven properly except under very specific circumstances - because they were all powerful RWD mid engined cars.

The Diablo, F50, McLaren F1 in the 90's - no change there. They don't like the roads, and live in Arab collector garages or on special track days - why is this?? Because they're powerful RWD mid engined cars.

The noughties, um Ferrari Enzo, Pagani Zonda, Carerra GT, all still spends more time in heated garages and special track days as owners could not drive them without risk - why is this?? They were all powerful RWD mid engined cars.

As you can see, you had 3 decades for the cream of the crop elite to make a car that can be used in a sustainable high performance capacity 365 days a week in various conditions. Did they have to? Probably not .....

Nissan tried.....one attempt with the GTR and it succeeded. Why? Because Nissan never limited themselves to the Mid engined RWD formula, they had to think outside of the box.

Porsche has a inherently flawed rear engined layout, yet still much more accessible car in the 911 Turbo because they had to accept RWD was not the way to go for a powerful road centric performance car.

The physics, a technical and practical understanding of how cars behave on the road as well as just driving them has shaped my perspective - not from the aggressive and snobbish comments & opinions of internet forum posters.

People feel they need to change my mind because it hurts their ego that I don't rate their expensive ride. 

Harsh? This is the internet after all ffs. :clap:




Blade said:


> So tell me - what WOULD impress you then? Oh yeh, forgot - an LFA or an F12


LFA would be my prime choice if I were in the money to buy a fast car I can do a 500 mile a week stint in and not feel annoyed as it has a proper cabin and road setup. It is everything an Aston Martin big coupe dreamed of being if AM had the facilities and ambition to build one. 

A Honda NSX (mid engined RWD ha!) would be nice too - lovely construction, light touch and inoffensiveness that doesn't attract idiots and the police - but limited in power (a good thing for such a chassis) and would not be as forgiving as a FR car in some circumstances.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I do not rubbish people's ownership and experiences, I firstly reject statements that are irreverent to the topic and express again that I am just not convinced that mid engined RWD cars have any longevity and relevance on the road in the context of usable high performance - because the laws of physics in 2012 has not changed - it was still the same in 1987 where the F40 and Countach were dangerous cars that could not really ever be driven properly except under very specific circumstances - because they were all powerful RWD mid engined cars.
> 
> The Diablo, F50, McLaren F1 in the 90's - no change there. They don't like the roads, and live in Arab collector garages or on special track days - why is this?? Because they're powerful RWD mid engined cars.
> 
> ...


Sorry mate, your wrong. I cant be arsed to go into detail right now because I'm rather tired......suffice to say Blade hit the nail on the head a few posts ago.
The speed at which you dismiss ALL mid engined cars as 'dangerous' is a rather outdated mindset...

TT


----------



## woundedgoat (Oct 7, 2012)

I'm not going to pretend I know much about the LFA, but I would love to know what justifys it being 4 times the price of a GTR.

To me they see quite simillar, in terms of styling and performance.

So for me a I would keep my GTR and buy a 458 rather than own an LFA.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Seems he also puts every Porsche bar the 4wd models in the dangerous bracket too. And the cayman, Elise, evora, vx220, beetle, etc I'm there too

As for Nissan timing one attempt that is nuts. 240z, 200sx, 300zx, r32, r33, r34 and r35

That's quite a few attempts. The 300zx was very much at the time lauded as nissan's supercar. My dad out one in 1990 and still has it.

Front engined cars are not the best balanced, mid engined are. Granted 4wd is safer than fwd and then rwd but modern diffs and systems like the mclarens torque vectoring and bmws similar system that use the brakes to control traction completely change all of that.

We don't live in the North Pole and as wet as it is here conditions are not bad for most of the year. The major limiting actor is the tyres used. With the right tyres in the winter it's a much more level playing field.

In any event, modern super cars do not drive off into a ditch at a moments notice!

The 458, mp4 12c, r8, gallardo, 997 carrera etc are all everyday, safe and usable cars and in the hand of joe average no more dangerous than anything else. One could argue the gtr is more dangerous as its competency is only really evident at illegal speeds.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

woundedgoat said:


> I'm not going to pretend I know much about the LFA, but I would love to know what justifys it being 4 times the price of a GTR.
> 
> To me they see quite simillar, in terms of styling and performance.
> 
> So for me a I would keep my GTR and buy a 458 rather than own an LFA.


I think it is something of an engineering tour de force in the engine department, with any amazing engine meant to evoke memories of f1, which is ironic as Toyota then left f1.

It sounds awesome and has some great tech, but the its just another supercar, albeit ugly, but at least rarer than most. Does kind of look like the child of an 3 way with a gtr, gallardo and 458!

Doesn't do it for me. You could keep your gtr, get a 458 and a gt3 and still be under the lfa cost.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

I used to have an NSX.

Great car, just massively slow. Chassis could easily have taken 400 bhp. Felt no safer than the 360 stradale with 425bhp and 1280kgs.

I'm not sue I'd your objection is rwd cars or mid engined.

Without question the best centre of gravity and weight balance is achieved with mid engined, though some front-engined cars with the engine set right back and a transaxle gearbox can get close, one of the reasons the gtr does well in r35 guise.

If the objection is rwd then most of BMWs offerings are dangerous! 

There is no point continuing this as all your points are based on theory, evidence of cars of yore and ignoring valid owners with real experience.

You are not discussing or debating anything and not remotely interested in any position than your out-dated, warped and completely incorrect view of mid engined cars.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Sidious said:


> LFA would be my prime choice if I were in the money to buy a fast car I can do a 500 mile a week stint in and not feel annoyed as it has a proper cabin and road setup.
> 
> A Honda NSX (mid engined RWD ha!) would be nice too - lovely construction, light touch.


Would I be right in assuming you have never driven either? So how do you know? To call the NSX light touch is rubbish. I have an early non PAS car and light touch is not something I would call it. 

As far as mid engined cars go, the later Gallardos are equally, if not quicker than a GTR on the road. Unlike the GTR they have "proper" 4wd systems (opinions on whether that is better or worse are going to be subjective), but personally I can pedal a Gallardo quicker than the GTR in all weathers. Where the Gtr wants to kick its arse out, the Gallardo just puts the power down, no fuss. 

What really saves the Gtr, on the road, driven by "average Joe" is the ESP. Take that away and I bet most of us would not drive it anywhere near as hard, especially in the wet. This is the same for any powerful rwd car. 

If you want a real A to B weapon, get yourself a modded Evo 10, or better still, get off the playstation, and stop spouting out vicarious experiences. It adds nothing to the debate.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred, I've never driven a Gallardo so interesting what you say about them. They are not made for people of my size sadly. What you say is spot on. The GTR is very tail happy in R mode, much to my surprise, and the 4wd is just to get you out of the proverbial. In the dry, it feels and appears to be almost entirely rwd.

Driving it this morning in the snow for the first time and it wasn't great, but that's not really a big surprise on the Dunlops. Better than my M3 was on Pilot Sport Cups though!

It's pretty clear Sidious hasn't got any experience of driving any of the cars he has decided are rubbish (or the ones he thinks are great). He is just your typical Internet keyboard warrior that probably barely functions in the real world.

Interestingly I thought my 360 Stradale was better in these conditions on P Zero Corsas!

Will have to bolt the snow tyres onto the Type R as that will be awful otherwise.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Living With the McLaren MP4-12C - CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS - YouTube

Chris Harris showing you how the MP4-12c is an everyday car and can be used in all conditions.

Love the opening statement - "Its a car you can live with every day of the year".... "Rides better than a Rolls Royce"

Perhaps Sidious can now understand that it doesn't have springs and dampers.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Blade said:


> Without question the best centre of gravity and weight balance is achieved with mid engined, though some front-engined cars with the engine set right back and a transaxle gearbox can get close, one of the reasons the gtr does well in r35 guise.


Indeed!! One of the best handling cars I have ever had the pleasure of driving was a Porsche 968 Clubbie....as near 50/50 weight disctribution as dammit. Not a powerful car (in the sort of numbers we're used to on here!) but endowed with a poise and balance that I've really not felt since.....

A powerful car that can be bisterringly fast on a straight is nothing  if it can't handle the corner at the end 

TT


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> Indeed!! One of the best handling cars I have ever had the pleasure of driving was a Porsche 968 Clubbie....as near 50/50 weight disctribution as dammit. Not a powerful car (in the sort of numbers we're used to on here!) but endowed with a poise and balance that I've really not felt since.....
> 
> A powerful car that can be bisterringly fast on a straight is nothing  if it can't handle the corner at the end
> 
> TT


Have you ever driven an M3 CSL?


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Blade said:


> Fred, I've never driven a Gallardo so interesting what you say about them.


The LP560 is a seriously quick car, quicker in a straight line than a Stage 1, and it inspires loads more confidence than the GTR, which as you say is and feels like a RWD car most of the time. You can drive with impunity virtually all of the time in the Gaylord. However, as a drivers' car, the 458 is even better - and I think I'm right in saying quicker than a GTR on most tracks? 

I know a tuned GTR would be quicker, and is a performance bargain.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred said:


> You can drive with impunity virtually all of the time in the *Gaylord*.


Let me guess, iPad/Phone? 


Am I right in my opinion that a strapping 6'3 bloke won't fit in one? Even the driver seat in the GTR is too high for me! 

Every time I drag my wife to the Lambo garage, she drags me away. She doesn't like them (yet strangely loves the GTR!)


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Nope I meant the Gaylord tag 

I am just under 6 3 and have a spyder, and I am right at the limit of head height - to the extent that it spoils my hair . But the coupe is absolutely fine. You should try one, they are seriously impressive. You need a bit of time with one as the pace is not evident in the same way as with the GTR.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred said:


> Nope I meant the Gaylord tag
> 
> I am just under 6 3 and have a spyder, and I am right at the limit of head height - to the extent that it spoils my hair . But the coupe is absolutely fine. You should try one, they are seriously impressive. You need a bit of time with one as the pace is not evident in the same way as with the GTR.


I'll give it a go then. The SuperLegover was the one that most interested me...


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

Stop fellas you are making me well jealous!!!

Gotta say that I love my R35 but would love any of the exotics you have been talking about. Note to self, must work harder or rob a bank lol


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Blade said:


> Have you ever driven an M3 CSL?


No, not a CSL. Used to own an E46 M3..... That was a fantastic, practical and cheap to run car but the steeing was awful! Still, had it for 4 very pleasing years :clap:

I hear the CSL was in a different league altogether and FAR more than just a sum of its parts. Might get a shot of one eventually 

TT


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> No, not a CSL. Used to own an E46 M3..... That was a fantastic, practical and cheap to run car but the steeing was awful! Still, had it for 4 very pleasing years :clap:
> 
> I hear the CSL was in a different league altogether and FAR more than just a sum of its parts. Might get a shot of one eventually
> 
> TT


It is night and day really. The steering feel on the E46 is down to the front trailing arm bushes. They are much stiffer on the the CSL, but best are the replacement items from Ground Control in the US that just transform it.

The CSL (bit like the Stradale) were one of those cars where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. Easy to look at it as a stripped out E46 with a carbon air box and Recaros - but it was much more than that.

If I found a low miler I would defintely buy one to keep. Had two of them so can't quite believe I don't own one now! The induction noise is incredible. I'd love a completely standard one again.

Like wise the Stradale - two of the best cars ever.

From memory, I think the CSL might actually have a different steering rack (quicker)....


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

I'd love a Stradale, I had a 360 CS "spec" but I am sure it was nowhere near as good.

I agree with the CSL comments, really excellent car and the induction noise is absolutely awesome. I can't believe you actually sold it! The CSL is a keeper surely. I love it.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

The trouble with the CSL is that it will always have an SMG gearbox and because of that it will always be ultimately dissapointing to drive.

I tried to like it, I really did, and at the time despite criticism it was very good. After a twin clutch, not so much.

Feels like an 80s relic.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

SMG is nothing like that in the standard M3. Totally different and really engaging, though at its best with a slight lift on upshift. With the different ecu, Alpha N engine mapping and carbon airbox, the downshifts are to die for.

Different to the GTR, but utterly engaging as is that on the 360 Strad.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> Without question the best centre of gravity and weight balance is achieved with mid engined, though some front-engined cars with the engine set right back and a transaxle gearbox can get close, one of the reasons the gtr does well in r35 guise.


Very misleading philosophy. The M-R layout is good for yaw response but once the limits have been reached or the car has been unsettled its chances of recovery is vastly less than F-R layouts.

Best leave M-R cars to skilled professional drivers on the tracks. Correcting the steering 3-5 times a second to save the car, and constant pedal feathering limits actual progress and you will luck out eventually.


The GTR was not built around that concept I'm afraid, the idea is to introduce similar mass loading between the front and rear axles. High loading, stability at the limit, good for average regular drivers.

A pure mid-engined car can easily be 40:60, 50:50, same with FR - almost any weight distribution is possible no matter where the engine is located.






Blade said:


> If the objection is rwd then most of BMWs offerings are dangerous!
> 
> There is no point continuing this as all your points are based on theory, evidence of cars of yore and ignoring valid owners with real experience.
> 
> You are not discussing or debating anything and not remotely interested in any position than your out-dated, warped and completely incorrect view of mid engined cars


I never once said pure RWD is dangerious. 

It is the combination of mid-engined and pure RWD and high engine output in the CONTEXT of daily accessibility and the confidence of being able to take it to almost any road or condition without having to make significant changes to driving behavior or speed.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Nothing to say about the Mclaren? No, of course not. That would mean saying you were wrong....


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Fred said:


> Would I be right in assuming you have never driven either? So how do you know? To call the NSX light touch is rubbish. I have an early non PAS car and light touch is not something I would call it.
> 
> As far as mid engined cars go, the later Gallardos are equally, if not quicker than a GTR on the road. Unlike the GTR they have "proper" 4wd systems (opinions on whether that is better or worse are going to be subjective), but personally I can pedal a Gallardo quicker than the GTR in all weathers. Where the Gtr wants to kick its arse out, the Gallardo just puts the power down, no fuss.
> 
> What really saves the Gtr, on the road, driven by "average Joe" is the ESP. Take that away and I bet most of us would not drive it anywhere near as hard, especially in the wet. This is the same for any powerful rwd car.



Fred, I recall a while ago you rubbished the S2000 with comments that made no sense what so ever, and it looks like you have again made comments about the NSX.

What you have done is contested every thing pleasant about the NSX with an example that had no power steering?! :chuckle: 

Regardless of PAS, it has a light usable clutch, nice gear box, comfortable ride quality and good visibility, the car is not excessively wide and looks dainty and inoffensive. 80's Porkers and Ferraris made you feel unwelcome to drive them everyday, the NSX did not.



Fred said:


> If you want a real A to B weapon, get yourself a modded Evo 10, or better still, get off the playstation, and stop spouting out vicarious experiences. It adds nothing to the debate.


I am happy with my R33 GTR thanks, I would not want to own cars that Continental playboys like you seem to prefer or suggest. :lamer: :smokin:


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> Nothing to say about the Mclaren? No, of course not. That would mean saying you were wrong....


What about the McLaren?

You mean it doesnt have dampers?

How does it 'damp' wheel and chassis energy then?


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I am happy with my R33 GTR thanks, I would not want to own cars that Continental playboys like you seem to prefer or suggest. :lamer: :smokin:


Why do you have to be offensive with this continental playboy rubbish?

You've got a Skyline so must be a chav? Jeez....

I'd say grow up but you already sound like an old man.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> What about the McLaren?
> 
> You mean it doesnt have dampers?
> 
> How does it 'damp' wheel and chassis energy then?


Did you watch the video or are you a total moron?

It does not have traditional springs, dampers or anti-roll bars. It has a hydraulic system instead, controlled by ecus to provide the right amount of support (or not) and roll control according to the road, driving mode, conditions etc. Far superior to anything on any car (e.g. GTR)


----------



## rob wild (Jul 30, 2007)

tarmac terror said:


> LOL, I can see the post title now......."*shock* Stage 10 GTR beats track-prepped R32!!" :chuckle::chuckle:


Lol  surely only stage 15 would be fair! 



tarmac terror said:


> I'd be interested to take an R35 on track and see what it can do. Had one out on the road a while back but that's a different environment entirely! I do rate the GTR as a performance car...it's impossible not to. Its made a decent reputation for itself which is to be applauded in all fairness. The missus and I were seriously considering a GTR when the time came to move out of our E46 M3 but it was primarily the look of the car which neither of us could really get over TBH.


After driving many many fast motors on the road but not doing lots of track work for a couple of years, I was surprised at just how good the GTR was on track at stage 4! Considering how heavy it is! I had a friend of mine with me in his time attack 700hp Supra and him being a much better driver and he just couldn't get past round Cadwell! For me I learnt more about driving the GTR hard in 10 laps than I had driving it round on the roads in 6 months! It was amazing just how good the GTR was on track against all sorts of track hardened cars etc. The only bit that let the car down was tbh me! After 5 laps of pushing on and making process my neck and back had, had it! However (and slightly back on topic) I'm not sure about the 458, I think my dream car on or off track would be a Lambo Aventador! 



tarmac terror said:


> It's styling is very polarising and I guess I sit on the 'other' side of the fence.


You do make me smile with that, (only because its exactly what i'd do) with what you've done to your 32 and its mad front end, its a bit more than polarised  :thumbsup:



tarmac terror said:


> I think in time, as the cars become older and folks start ripping them apart to make dedicated track weapon's then we will see the car come into its own. The tuning industry is already going nuts for the GTR and it would be good to think that it will still be as prevalent in years to come. Hell, companies are still producing innovative stuff for the Skyline GTR's after 20-odd years so if the GTR can command the same following, it'll be doing alright.
> 
> :thumbsup:
> 
> TT


Here's hoping so fella! and the same for R32/3/4! I may in time go back to a R34!


----------



## New Reg (Jul 22, 2011)

Ahhh - Sidious must surely win the 'most times I can make myself look a complete plank in a single thread' award.

Stop feeding the (very bitter) troll lads....


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Sidious said:


> Fred, I recall a while ago you rubbished the S2000 with comments that made no sense what so ever, and it looks like you have again made comments about the NSX.
> 
> What you have done is contested every thing pleasant about the NSX with an example that had no power steering?! :chuckle:
> 
> Regardless of PAS, it has a light usable clutch, nice gear box, comfortable ride quality and good visibility, the car is not excessively wide and looks dainty and inoffensive. 80's Porkers and Ferraris made you feel unwelcome to drive them everyday, the NSX did not.


What a load of rubbish. I love the NSX, hence bought one, but to call an NSX light touch is tosh. 

The S2000 is indeed one of the most overrated cars I have ever driven, but that is irrelevant. One of the best I have driven is the DC2, also a Honda, and also irrelevant to the conversation.

You are plagiarising with your comments, because they are not the comments you would make if you owned or drove the cars. To call the NSX not too wide is ridiculous. Compared to what? It was a competitor to the 964 when launched and that was "daintier and slimmer" than the NSX. Oh and has a "lighter" touch to drive, and a very similar gear change.

I guess the answer to "have you ever driven the cars?" we are discussing is a resounding no .

I tire.


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

woundedgoat said:


> I saw a post about that day, sounds awesome, I will def put my name down on that, I didnt want to until I actually had ownership.
> 
> Will you be bringing the 458? Part of me wants to see one in that kind of environment but part of me doesn't, as I know I will want one big time!
> 
> My car is stock and I'm sure will be trounced by many a modded GTR, but what really appeals to me is giving it some with out worrying about the police :clap:


Yes I'll be going to this with my car. It will be a right laugh and good to see how cars fair against the mighty GTR. I reckon I should be ok after I get going against stock gtr. It will be the initial setting off where gtr will have me.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> Did you watch the video or are you a total moron?


I dont need to watch the video, I am familiar with this type of suspension system, Citroen, Lotus and a few others were doing stuff similar to this years ago with hydraulics.





Blade said:


> It does not have traditional springs, dampers or anti-roll bars. It has a hydraulic system instead, controlled by ecus to provide the right amount of support (or not) and roll control according to the road, driving mode, conditions etc. Far superior to anything on any car (e.g. GTR)


So it should be considering the price differential to the GTR. :clap: :thumbsup:

It's still low slung mid engined RWD chassis though, this alone makes it less potent than a GTR over most of the roads out there.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Fred said:


> What a load of rubbish. I love the NSX, hence bought one, but to call an NSX light touch is tosh.


I can call the NSX whatever I like, it's my personal subjective opinion. :smokin:

I find Picasso's work stimulating, someone else who likes Rembrandt will think it's a load of disordinate rubbish. It's all personal subjectivity. 



Fred said:


> The S2000 is indeed one of the most overrated cars I have ever driven, but that is irrelevant. One of the best I have driven is the DC2, also a Honda, and also irrelevant to the conversation.


In your subjectve opinion, which I disagree with. Move on.




Fred said:


> You are plagiarising with your comments, because they are not the comments you would make if you owned or drove the cars. To call the NSX not too wide is ridiculous. Compared to what? It was a competitor to the 964 when launched and that was "daintier and slimmer" than the NSX. Oh and has a "lighter" touch to drive, and a very similar gear change.
> 
> I guess the answer to "have you ever driven the cars?" we are discussing is a resounding no .
> 
> I tire.


The real problem is not whether or not I have driven these cars, which I have, the problem is you don't like it when someone has a different opinion about them. 

Yes, you 'tire' away. :sadwavey:


----------



## woundedgoat (Oct 7, 2012)

baileyconstruct said:


> Yes I'll be going to this with my car. It will be a right laugh and good to see how cars fair against the mighty GTR. I reckon I should be ok after I get going against stock gtr. It will be the initial setting off where gtr will have me.


I'm in two minds whether to mod mine, if I had bought a 2010 I definitely would of gone stage 4.

Do you have the link to the thread for it, as I would like to put my name down.

I would really like to be passed by a screaming Ferrari 458 lol!


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

woundedgoat said:


> I'm in two minds whether to mod mine, if I had bought a 2010 I definitely would of gone stage 4.
> 
> Do you have the link to the thread for it, as I would like to put my name down.
> 
> I would really like to be passed by a screaming Ferrari 458 lol!


Try this link


```
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/170623-day-runway-yesterday.html
```
Looking forward to it already.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I dont need to watch the video, I am familiar with this type of suspension system, Citroen, Lotus and a few others were doing stuff similar to this years ago with hydraulics.


They used PNEUMATICS not HYDRAULICS, and it was not similar as they did not control the roll or have computers, just a set level of AIR.

The only car that attempted a similar system on the roll side was the Audi A6.

Your refusal to watch the video is incredible, and now you harp on about price differential when you have been applauding the LFA which is near double the McLaren price and no quicker than the GTR!

You know next to nothing and deliver your ignorance with authority!

(Edited to say that Citroen did use a mixed oil/nitrogen system oleopneumatic system). None of them were active, just "self-levelling")

I'm not going to feed Sidious any more, there is no point.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> They used PNEUMATICS not HYDRAULICS, and it was not similar as they did not control the roll or have computers, just a set level of AIR.
> 
> The only car that attempted a similar system on the roll side was the Audi A6.
> 
> ...


They're all the same in concept, and they all used high pressure fluids. You are getting into a huff about the details of how it's done.

I dont need to justify my preference of the LFA over mid engined rwd cars, a fast FR car is realistically and repeatably faster and light years more pleasant than any 'racey' mid engined rwd pose mobile outside off a dry circuit.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> They're all the same in concept, and they all used high pressure fluids. You are getting into a huff about the details of how it done.


No, I'm not - and you are choosing to ignore the roll bar and computer controlled aspect that makes it totally different.


----------



## markleach (Jun 29, 2009)

Sidious said:


> They're all the same in concept, and they all used high pressure fluids. You are getting into a huff about the details of how it's done.
> 
> I dont need to justify my preference of the LFA over mid engined rwd cars, a fast FR car is realistically and repeatably faster and light years more pleasant than any 'racey' mid engined rwd pose mobile outside off a dry circuit.


I know people have probably asked you this question before,but how many of these cars you seem to be such an expert on have you actually driven for any length of time,or indeed owned,just wonder why you keep referring to some of the best drivers cars as poser machines,chip and shoulder spring to mind.
By the way what car do you run now


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

Lesson to all, ignore any post made by Sidious his troll responses aren't worth the server space.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> No, I'm not - and you are choosing to ignore the roll bar and computer controlled aspect that makes it totally different.


I am not ignoring that it doesnt use anti-roll bars, the fact that they choose not to use them is pretty irrelevent to whatever argument you have about supercars and their application on road use.

The fact that active suspension is used on the McLaren is irrelevent in arguement - it doesn't make the car smaller and easier to drive in small spaces and narrow lanes, it doesnt improve visibility or getting in and out of the thing, it doesn't change the behavior of mid-engined on it's limit, it doesn't magically eliminate or reduce load variation (although their F1 race cars do the latter), and the suspension wheel travel is about as limited as any other 'racey' supercar out there.

I will try to be diplomatic and agree the active suspension on the MP4-12c does place the ride quality and suspension potential above that of other supercars, this cannot be a bad thing for any car however because the car is still an MR, with dimensions around the 1960's teardrop race car template there are the fundemental underpinnings that it emphasises ultimate lap performance on track and not repeatable and accessible performance on the road.

A 911 Turbo is rear engined, lots of power, and with all the use of 'N' marked tyres of specific construction front and rear and 4WD - the limits of the car is raised for average drivers before the rear end bias at the limit bites hard. You can only do so much based around a flawed concept on the road.

It's about having the right tool for the right job, you can cut a tree down with a sharp 1 peice forged knive but an axe will do a better job.


----------



## KingOfTheGT-R (May 21, 2011)

Anders_R35 said:


> Lesson to all, ignore any post made by Sidious his troll responses aren't worth the server space.


 This should be in the ten commandments of the GTROC.


----------



## Papa Smurf (Sep 25, 2008)

KingOfTheGT-R said:


> This should be in the ten commandments of the GTROC.


+1

It is with some amusement that I read, albeit at a distance, the extremely knowledgeable information by some very intelligent people and the other less knowledgeable comments by other(s). 

This is a forum, so anyone can have an opinion, whether they are right or wrong. The only thing that irritates me is when insults start flying around that challenge peoples credibility. It is up to individuals who read the forum to sort the rubbish from the facts - just don't make it personal!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

nurburgringgtr said:


> +1
> 
> It is with some amusement that I read, albeit at a distance, the extremely knowledgeable information by some very intelligent people and the other less knowledgeable comments by other(s).
> 
> This is a forum, so anyone can have an opinion, whether they are right or wrong. The only thing that irritates me is when insults start flying around that challenge peoples credibility. It is up to individuals who read the forum to sort the rubbish from the facts - just don't make it personal!


Not sure it's aimed at me or not. I'm all for opinions and good debate, but it is incredibly frustrating when someone just has a totally polaric view and ignores everything that anyone has to say, and cherry picks comments to respond etc. I've tried (hard) not to get personal... (probably failed, so apologies if that is the case)


----------



## Papa Smurf (Sep 25, 2008)

Blade said:


> Not sure it's aimed at me or not. I'm all for opinions and good debate, but it is incredibly frustrating when someone just has a totally polaric view and ignores everything that anyone has to say, and cherry picks comments to respond etc. I've tried (hard) not to get personal... (probably failed, so apologies if that is the case)


Not aimed at you Tony whatsoever


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

You guys are only on page 11 with a bit of light weight trolling. Brian subjected another part of the forum to over 30 pages on the Bradley Wiggins thread, trying to convince us he was right. Come to think of it though, maybe Brian and Sidious are brothers?:chuckle:

You know it's time to ignore someone when they expect a shitbox Honda to carry the same merit as a supercar.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

TAZZMAXX said:


> You know it's time to ignore someone when they expect a shitbox Honda to carry the same merit as a supercar.


:bowdown1: There are many forums I'd like to repeat that on.:chuckle:


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

TAZZMAXX said:


> You know it's time to ignore someone when they expect a shitbox Honda to carry the same merit as a supercar.



I wouldn't go round calling a Civic Type R a shitbox - especially the concept that Honda has. 

If you really cannot see how a car like that (or any other decent performance car derived from real world parameters) can ever be compared to a supercar in terms of merit then you have chosen to limit yourself to descern and enjoy things only valued by old-world aristocrats.

To me, merit spans beyond supercar marketing guff like 'low polar moment of inertia from motorsport derived mid-ship engine mount in carbon fiber mono structure' - whilsts cars like the LFA or a Civic doesn't have such things, their merit or value translates into positive benefit for the driver and owner can be found well outside of what is so holy cherished in motorsports.


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

LOL Tazz an old-world aristocrat. I bet that's the best insult he's ever had.:chuckle:

Get your head out of your righteous ar$e chap. It ain't nothing to do with money. (Edited as I think that disingenuous to say that actually, what I mean is it isn't JUST to do with money). You must be related to another user on here, in fact I might check the IPs to see if you share them .


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I wouldn't go round calling a Civic Type R a shitbox - especially the concept that Honda has.
> 
> If you really cannot see how a car like that (or any other decent performance car derived from real world parameters) can ever be compared to a supercar in terms of merit then you have chosen to limit yourself to descern and enjoy things only valued by old-world aristocrats.
> 
> To me, merit spans beyond supercar marketing guff like 'low polar moment of inertia from motorsport derived mid-ship engine mount in carbon fiber mono structure' - whilsts cars like the LFA or a Civic doesn't have such things, their merit or value translates into positive benefit for the driver and owner can be found well outside of what is so holy cherished in motorsports.


You keep forgetting I've got a Type R, with the Mugen enhanced suspension (before you start it is softer, as I had the car standard to start with) and the LSD that many of them miss.

I love it, but my wife's X5 can leave it for dead! Its a wonderful way of going slowly, but it struggles as it is nose heavy and full of torque steer that perverts a FWD car. It also jettisons value like no other car I've owned!

It also has an entirely race inspired engine! Revving to 8500rpm with ease, no real torque to speak of and a close-ratio gearbox that has you doing 1000rpm more than in a normal manual road car at all road speeds (to make up for the missing engine torque).

All Mugen bits supplied by Mr Litchfield


----------



## markleach (Jun 29, 2009)

Sidious said:


> I am not ignoring that it doesnt use anti-roll bars, the fact that they choose not to use them is pretty irrelevent to whatever argument you have about supercars and their application on road use.
> 
> The fact that active suspension is used on the McLaren is irrelevent in arguement - it doesn't make the car smaller and easier to drive in small spaces and narrow lanes, it doesnt improve visibility or getting in and out of the thing, it doesn't change the behavior of mid-engined on it's limit, it doesn't magically eliminate or reduce load variation (although their F1 race cars do the latter), and the suspension wheel travel is about as limited as any other 'racey' supercar out there.
> 
> ...



I wish he would go and try and cut a tree down with a knife,would take him that long it would stop him posting crap on here


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

tonigmr2 said:


> LOL Tazz an old-world aristocrat. I bet that's the best insult he's ever had.:chuckle:
> 
> Get your head out of your righteous ar$e chap. It ain't nothing to do with money. (Edited as I think that disingenuous to say that actually, what I mean is it isn't JUST to do with money). You must be related to another user on here, in fact I might check the IPs to see if you share them .


I wasn't really talking about money. I am trying to point out the implied snobbishness and total ignorance for someone to think that a performance car like a Civic Type R cannot be ever held in the same regard as a supercar. 

Why not? 

Why can a GTR be compared to a 458? The GTR is a front engined V6 auto matic made by Datsun, what a POS?

Why can R34 GTR be compared to a Porsche 911 Turbo? Don't you know you are comparing a boxy Datsun to a marque with incredible motorsport experience and only the finest champagne glugging racing drivers know how to drive them fast? 

The truth is it is perfectly valid to compare such cars, they all have one common goal, that is to provide fun when driving as fast as you dare. It is the quality and characteristics that differentiates each one of them, and some types of cars just happens to cost more than others if you want to have that particular quality or character in a car.

If I pick a cheaper car over an exotic, it doesn't make me jealous, it's just that particular car has something that the exotic car lacks, you just have to put snobbery and fear of snearing from narrow minded car snobs aside and embrace that 'lesser' cars have value in their own right.

It can go the other way round but in the context of this thread, in context of usable cars, repeatable and accessible performance and real world compatibility, mid engine RWD powerful cars (which happen to cost alot of money anyway) is not my cup of tea and I have explained the technical reasons why many times in this thread.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> You keep forgetting I've got a Type R, with the Mugen enhanced suspension (before you start it is softer, as I had the car standard to start with) and the LSD that many of them miss.
> 
> I love it, but my wife's X5 can leave it for dead! Its a wonderful way of going slowly, but it struggles as it is nose heavy and full of torque steer that perverts a FWD car. It also jettisons value like no other car I've owned!
> 
> ...



Fine by me, all perfectly subjective opinions.

The Civic's and other Honda's with 'missing torque' I driven were no slouches in my experience and that is all that matters to me. Just as your own views of the cars only matter to you.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

markleach said:


> I wish he would go and try and cut a tree down with a knife,would take him that long it would stop him posting crap on here


And what exactly have you posted that is of any insight other than snipe?

I am not afraid to disagree with people, and more importantly I am not afraid of people disagreeing with what I say on forum - that's what drives a debate and some people (if they have any form of intellect) will be able to take something from it - even if they are still in disagreement. :thumbsup:


----------



## JapFreak786 (Aug 29, 2003)

But will a Y pipe invalidate my warranty? And if not which one shall I get? 
PSML this thread is funny!! Think I should do a response with really big words jumbled together as well, make myself seem important?!


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

GTR probably better "real" world car. 458 better "feel" car.... cant compare them in my opinion. 

GTR - every day super, up there with the best. 
458 - would, i assume, deliver the extra "fizz" may talks about.

both astonishing in their own rights...


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I wouldn't go round calling a Civic Type R a shitbox - especially the concept that Honda has.
> 
> If you really cannot see how a car like that (or any other decent performance car derived from real world parameters) can ever be compared to a supercar in terms of merit then you have chosen to limit yourself to descern and enjoy things only valued by old-world aristocrats.
> 
> To me, merit spans beyond supercar marketing guff like 'low polar moment of inertia from motorsport derived mid-ship engine mount in carbon fiber mono structure' - whilsts cars like the LFA or a Civic doesn't have such things, their merit or value translates into positive benefit for the driver and owner can be found well outside of what is so holy cherished in motorsports.


Its fair to say 'supercars' of old were about as practical as a fart in a spacesuit. TODAY, however, I think that arguement is WAY off the mark!! I can say with complete subjectivity that I could easily live with the 458 every day! As easy to drive as a Focus.

You seem to speak of supercars and those that can afford them with disdain...so what if someone has a few £££ and can afford a piece of exotica??? Good on them I say. Problem with this country is that when a certain type of individual sees a Ferrari etc they automatically assume the driver is a dick and feel resentful. Why is that??? 
Personally I like seeing exotica on the road...I dont really think too much about the driver TBH. They've obviously done well for themselves to afford such nice machinery and thats something to applaud, not be critical of.

TT


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

I think the biggest problem with Sidious' views are that he has never driven most of the cars he has given "opinions" on. That makes his "opinion" as good as anyone who has access to Google.

I'm all for different views, but at least come with an informed view.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Fred said:


> I think the biggest problem with Sidious' views are that he has never driven most of the cars he has given "opinions" on. That makes his "opinion" as good as anyone who has access to Google.
> 
> I'm all for different views, but at least come with an informed view.


Yep, and those who do have an informed view are ignored or rubbished by Sidious if their view is different.

Either he is a troll who just enjoys this behaviour or he really has a totally blinkered view of cars, trapped in a 1980s view of the world.

I also laughed a little about his point that cars like McLaren/Ferrari/Porsche sell on their racing heritage where Nissan doesn't, which is utter tosh. Nissan have an great racing heritage in Japan, and also in Europe with Lemans and even FIA GT.

I suspect he is a troll because he doesn't debate, he dictates and is not willing to discuss any empirical evidence or actual experience that differs to his very fixed opinion.

I suggest we just abstain from further comment as there no value in continuing.


----------



## New Reg (Jul 22, 2011)

tarmac terror said:


> You seem to speak of supercars and those that can afford them with disdain...so what if someone has a few £££ and can afford a piece of exotica??? Good on them I say. Problem with this country is that when a certain type of individual sees a Ferrari etc they automatically assume the driver is a dick and feel resentful. Why is that???


I agree with what you say. It is pure bitterness and it is found a lot in this country. I remember some years ago reading an article in Evo magazine about two blokes who picked up a pair of Ferraris (a 360 and a 575 if I remember rightly) in Maranello and drove them back through Europe to a dealership in the UK. Whilst driving these two cars on the continent the two were greeted with waves, thumbs up, people wanting to talk about the cars and take pictures and general all round positivity. Once they arrived back in the UK that attitude changed dramatically - they were cut up, abused by other road users and experienced a lot of negativity at the fact they were driving these two beauties. Basically other people venting their jealousy and sense of inadequacy. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?


----------



## OldBob (Oct 18, 2010)

Great thread and it hasn't even touched on dick size yet opcorn:


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

New Reg said:


> I agree with what you say. It is pure bitterness and it is found a lot in this country. I remember some years ago reading an article in Evo magazine about two blokes who picked up a pair of Ferraris (a 360 and a 575 if I remember rightly) in Maranello and drove them back through Europe to a dealership in the UK. Whilst driving these two cars on the continent the two were greeted with waves, thumbs up, people wanting to talk about the cars and take pictures and general all round positivity. Once they arrived back in the UK that attitude changed dramatically - they were cut up, abused by other road users and experienced a lot of negativity at the fact they were driving these two beauties. Basically other people venting their jealousy and sense of inadequacy. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?


Indeed! When I had my 360 Stradale, it was so weird. On one extreme, people would come out of shops when I stopped at traffic lights and start taking pitches. The other extreme, people really aggressive waving w&nkr signs at me.


When people liked it, they behaved quite irrationally. Top Gear did an article on the 360 Stradale vs 996 RS, and prior to the current Top Gear USA, they made a Top Gear USA for the Discovery Channel. They reused the track footage but needed to reshoot some of the studio bits. Cut a long story short, I provided my car as for the studio bits. My car drew everyone, falling over themselves - lying on the ground photographing the Pinafarina logo - totally weird. My wife and I left them to it, and we were quite happily looking at a Zonda and Bentley in the studio that everyone else totally ignored! I mean, a ZONDA!

The negativity and prejudice is at all levels though. Look at the stereotypical view of what makes a BMW driver, or a Porsche owner...

etc etc.

It goes both ways too. People I know who do own the kind of cars the GTR humiliates always resort to calling the GTR a Datsun... Why can't people (at both ends of the spectrum) admire the good in all cars, whether you can afford them or they visually appeal to you or not?



Weird!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

OldBob said:


> Great thread and it hasn't even touched on dick size yet opcorn:


No, but let's go there - mine's huge     

Maybe there is an analogy here... Dick being fairly centrally mounted and all that 

I suppose the Ferrari would be a huge wanger only really usable with a certain type of hussy where as the GTR, possibly not so visually impressive, but capable of sorting out any bint, anytime, anywhere...


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

New Reg said:


> I agree with what you say. It is pure bitterness and it is found a lot in this country. I remember some years ago reading an article in Evo magazine about two blokes who picked up a pair of Ferraris (a 360 and a 575 if I remember rightly) in Maranello and drove them back through Europe to a dealership in the UK. Whilst driving these two cars on the continent the two were greeted with waves, thumbs up, people wanting to talk about the cars and take pictures and general all round positivity. Once they arrived back in the UK that attitude changed dramatically - they were cut up, abused by other road users and experienced a lot of negativity at the fact they were driving these two beauties. Basically other people venting their jealousy and sense of inadequacy. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?


I read that article too a while back...

So what is it about owning a supercar that makes folks think your a ******?? Just because you have a few bob in your pocket isnt an automatic qualification into the masturbation club!! I HATE the attitude of folks like that...its pure jealousy and nothing else. Its ironic because it actually makes the jealous ones look like the tossers that they are.
I really have my heart set on an F430, and the first f****er to insinuate i masturbate a lot will get a piece of my mind :lamer: its clear very few people appreciate success in the UK. Funnily enough, its probably those that are successful themselves that appreciate others in the same boat...

Reminds me of a thread i posted ages ago asking for advice on Porsche 911's....folks going on about how i was willy waving, bragging and similar nonsense....laughably, the cars I was looking at were around HALF the price of a new GTR yet none of these folks saw fit to give those who bought NEW GTR's a hard time. Perceptions a funny thing.....

TT


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Fred said:


> I think the biggest problem with Sidious' views are that he has never driven most of the cars he has given "opinions" on. That makes his "opinion" as good as anyone who has access to Google.
> 
> I'm all for different views, but at least come with an informed view.


The problem is when someone has the driven the same cars you have - but expresses a different opinion to you, you see it as a 'problem'.

That is your problem, not mine. :chuckle:


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> I also laughed a little about his point that cars like McLaren/Ferrari/Porsche sell on their racing heritage where Nissan doesn't, which is utter tosh. Nissan have an great racing heritage in Japan, and also in Europe with Lemans and even FIA GT.


I know Nissan have a very rich motorsport history - my comment was clearly made in sarcasm. 

Try reading posts with care, instead of scanning for phrases to get upset at me about.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

tarmac terror said:


> Its fair to say 'supercars' of old were about as practical as a fart in a spacesuit. TODAY, however, I think that arguement is WAY off the mark!! I can say with complete subjectivity that I could easily live with the 458 every day! As easy to drive as a Focus.


Good for you, but totally irrelevent and false for my needs - and I do not believe you - not one bit.




tarmac terror said:


> You seem to speak of supercars and those that can afford them with disdain...so what if someone has a few £££ and can afford a piece of exotica??? Good on them I say. Problem with this country is that when a certain type of individual sees a Ferrari etc they automatically assume the driver is a dick and feel resentful. Why is that???
> Personally I like seeing exotica on the road...I dont really think too much about the driver TBH. They've obviously done well for themselves to afford such nice machinery and thats something to applaud, not be critical of.
> 
> TT


There is no disdain towards supercars or people who own them, if they're happy and got a smile on their face that makes me happy too. 

What I have a disdain about is the hierarchy that so many of you seem to have etched in your heads about where certain cars should be. 

It is a common mistake among enthusiasts to automatically place anything of motorsport pretentions (such as mid-engined RWD layouts) to the top of the tree when the car spends most of it's time on the road.

I value things in cars (in a supercar or a shopping car) that benefits me as a driver when on the road, not something that a race team would find handy.


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Sidious said:


> The problem is when someone has the driven the same cars you have - but expresses a different opinion to you, you see it as a 'problem'.
> 
> That is your problem, not mine. :chuckle:


That made me laugh. So when was the last time you drove the Lexus LFA?


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Fred said:


> That made me laugh. So when was the last time you drove the Lexus LFA?


No, and when was the last time you drove one?

Did I make any statements on the LFA's handling characteristics and ownership experience? No.

I said I RATE the LFA above a mid engined RWD 'supercar' because the LFA isn't mid engined RWD, it has a normal GT RWD coupe body and the engine is at the front where it should be.

These simple facts alone already convince me this is the kind of high-end expensive car (remember everyone accused me of not liking expensive cars) that I would love to own for road use. :smokin:

FRONT engined cars, normal doors, normal seats, RWD. Even Ferrari make cars like these for people who wish to drive frequently and long distances. That is the concept of a GT car, the LFA has that same concept.

Do I need to drive a front heavy FWD Golf GTI to be sure it performs and handles nothing like a MID engined RWD Lamborghini Gallardo?


----------



## Fred (Oct 11, 2001)

Sidious said:


> No, and when was the last time you drove one?
> 
> I said I RATE the LFA above a mid engined RWD 'supercar' because the LFA isn't mid engined RWD, it has a normal GT RWD coupe body and the engine is at the front where it should be.


Brilliant. Just brilliant :chuckle::chuckle:


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> No, and when was the last time you drove one?
> 
> Did I make any statements on the LFA's handling characteristics and ownership experience? No.
> 
> ...



So where are you with the Lotus Evora....

It's not expensive relatively, it's 4 seats - it isn't race inspired or derived, and has a middle engine position....

Or the original VW Beetle? That with its engine in the Porsche position.

If your fond of the front engine/rwd then where do these cars fit for you?

Corvette
Dodge Viper
Ferrari 550, 575, 599
All the Astons
Jag XKR


What about 4wd mid engine cars like the Lambo and R8? They have the traction, grip and safety, and in the case of the R8 is truly an every day car also.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Sidious said:


> No, and when was the last time you drove one?
> 
> Did I make any statements on the LFA's handling characteristics and ownership experience? No.
> 
> ...


Ok, you've clearly got a thing for front engined, rear wheel drive cars.....thats fine, but you're DEFINITELY prejudiced against anything mid engined. You say you rate the LFA BECAUSE of the fact that it ISNT a mid engined car....thats a pretty poor arguement TBH.
WHY do you see a mid engined car as 'race-only' and not practical for road use??? Thats a bonkers point of view TBH. What makes an F430 for example impractical for everyday driving??? Guy at work drives his R8 every day, guy round the corner from me has a Gallardo and uses that ALL year round...yes, ALL year round!!! Even when the roads are white, not black!!!!:chuckle:

So where do you sit with mid engined cars like MR2(mk1 &2), lotus elise, exige, evora, RS200, Fiat X1/9 etc. All useable, everyday cars......

Have you had a bad experience in a mid engined car thats put you off??? I've driven all configurations and dont have any particular preference in all honesty....FWD is too compromised, especially in higher output cars and its a toss-up between F/R and M/R as to which is better and comes down to the individual vehicle in all fairness.

You really cannot make a generalised statement to the effect that F/R is king and M/R is rubbish. I put it to you that you either have no concept of vehicle dynamics or you are a Luddite. I leave it to your judgement to decide which.....


TT


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> Ok, you've clearly got a thing for front engined, rear wheel drive cars.....thats fine, but you're DEFINITELY prejudiced against
> 
> TT


Sorry, totally off topic - just noticed the X5 4.8is in your sig.

I had one of those, still one of my most loved cars. Was awesome. Black one. loved it.

Had the engine in the front too


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Blade said:


> Sorry, totally off topic - just noticed the X5 4.8is in your sig.
> 
> I had one of those, still one of my most loved cars. Was awesome. Black one. loved it.
> 
> Had the engine in the front too


My X5 is black too.....With 22" Schnitzer alloys and Aero Kit....









I must admit, having come straight out of an M3 i wasn't expecting much from the test drive but TBH, i was blown away by the performance for a 2.25ton vehicle. Id suggest that, in real everyday terms, it could hold its own with an M3! A strong statement, but having had one yourself im sure you can appreciate where im coming from.....

I miss my M3 but oddly enough, the X5 puts a big smile on my face...

TT


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

tarmac terror said:


> .....With 22" Schnitzer alloys and Aero Kit....


Whoaaa there, Sidious won't like that! Those aftermarket wheels and aero kit will have seriously affected the dynamics of the vehicle. Do you honestly believe you know better than BMW?:chuckle:


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Whoaaa there, Sidious won't like that! Those aftermarket wheels and aero kit will have seriously affected the dynamics of the vehicle. Do you honestly believe you know better than BMW?:chuckle:


LOL....indeed. Its a question that should be directed at the previous owner as i bought it in this condition. Although its all stuff that was specced from new...that should count for something 

However, im staying true to his love of front engined vehicles. The fact that its 4WD is just a technicality :chuckle:

TT


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Guys seriously, you devoted so many pages to arguing with this idiot.

Ignore, repeat ignore.

He clearly knows nothing about physics or engineering, don't tise the bait again and again.

Ignore and stick to the original topic at your leisure. I thought the original question was pretty poor anyway.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

Blade said:


> So where are you with the Lotus Evora....
> 
> It's not expensive relatively, it's 4 seats - it isn't race inspired or derived, and has a middle engine position....
> 
> Or the original VW Beetle? That with its engine in the Porsche position.


I think the Evora is 'Lotus-themed' 2+2 coupe. Lotus always liked doing things as small and light as possible, and tried applying this concept around 4 seats. 

Not at all interested in the Beetle or even Porsche 911's. I always found the flat six engines pretty ugly sounding at low engine RPMs, and rear weight bias is not ideal.




Blade said:


> If your fond of the front engine/rwd then where do these cars fit for you?
> 
> Corvette
> Dodge Viper
> ...


The top-end Aston Martin's (V12 coupes) and the big FR Ferraris, also some Maserati's are all classic cross-continent GTs - would much rather own these over a 'supercar' if I want to drive one regularly. 

I just think in a money no object situation, I would want the LF-A over all of these. It has the same GT concept as the above cars but does it a bit better with that amazing V10 engine, yamaha tuned exhaust and acoustics, styling and Lexus build quality and reliability. But then this is why it costs over £300k.

Corvettes are too crude, cheap and not so cheerful IMO. 

Viper's are too comic-book for me.



Blade said:


> What about 4wd mid engine cars like the Lambo and R8? They have the traction, grip and safety, and in the case of the R8 is truly an every day car also.


I only had experience with a Gallardo out of the 2, they're permanent 4WD which gave it good out of corner traction, it was reasonably comfortable but as with all mid-engined supercars they unsettle pretty rapidly if you take a turn a bit too fast or if that short wheel travel suspension cannot follow a bump on the road. That was on the dry, can't see it being any better in the wet.

I do not doubt that you can drive a mid-engined low slung supercar everyday, modern supercars have become more reliable, more forgiving and less fatiguing than a 1980's counterpart - modern damper systems, electronic aids, tyres have come a long way to make it usable on the road - it is just not the *best* way to do it. 

It's just that a conventional sized FR/F4WD chassis gives much greater freedom for the driver to enjoy the car to its limits more more often, the chassis design would not be shackled by the racing design fundamentals of having engines stuck in the middle, and wide front and rear track widths and low ride heights - stuff that has only theoretical advantages on a circuit yet very little benefit on multi-conditioned single lane driving.


----------



## Sidious (Jul 14, 2006)

tarmac terror said:


> Ok, you've clearly got a thing for front engined, rear wheel drive cars.....thats fine, but you're DEFINITELY prejudiced against anything mid engined. You say you rate the LFA BECAUSE of the fact that it ISNT a mid engined car....thats a pretty poor arguement TBH.


Umm, let's get something clear now...

Firstly I only mentioned the LF-A in this thread to respond to predictable accusations of jealousy of expensive cars. The retail price of the car is inmaterial to the discussion, it is the concept and execution of the car that is all I am interested in. 

Secondly, the LF-A is a superior performance road car concept, it is in my opinion that a road car should be easy to get in and out of, it should have decent visibility, decent seating position and realistic ground clearance & wheel travel, having the center of mass infront of the driver all of which ensures superior accessibility for the driver. 

Nearly every FR coupe will demonstrate this superior accessibility and driver convenience over a slammed/low slung excessively wide MR supercar.

You can argue until the cows come home about the performance merits of having the engine in the middle - however only it would only be of practical interest to a track day warrior or racing driver.





tarmac terror said:


> You really cannot make a generalised statement to the effect that F/R is king and M/R is rubbish. I put it to you that you either have no concept of vehicle dynamics or you are a Luddite. I leave it to your judgement to decide which.....
> 
> 
> TT


I understand enough thank you.

And just to be clear, MR cars are not rubbish - they (from an £2k MR2 to a £100+k Lambo) are in my view and my needs just not the best kind of tool for the road. :thumbsup:


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

tarmac terror said:


> My X5 is black too.....With 22" Schnitzer alloys and Aero Kit....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think its awesome and has an amazing growl for a standard car. Miss mine. My wife's current X5 is just rubbish.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Sidious said:


> I do not doubt that you can drive a mid-engined low slung supercar everyday, modern supercars have become more reliable, more forgiving and less fatiguing than a 1980's counterpart - modern damper systems, electronic aids, tyres have come a long way to make it usable on the road - it is just not the *best* way to do it.
> 
> It's just that a conventional sized FR/F4WD chassis gives much greater freedom for the driver to enjoy the car to its limits more more often, the chassis design would not be shackled by the racing design fundamentals of having engines stuck in the middle, and wide front and rear track widths and low ride heights - stuff that has only theoretical advantages on a circuit yet very little benefit on multi-conditioned single lane driving.


This does sound like we are in violent agreement!

I would say to you though, give the McLaren a bit of benefit for the doubt, as I think it is a bit of a special case. I do agree that the MR car requires more skill at the limit, but I also think that most cars are not driven above 8/10ths on road or track as they are so competent. Driving at 10/10ths should never be done on the road, but you might get away with it in a GTR - and more than likely crash in an MR. It is true on circuit too.

There is an element of driving these cars that is a "taming of the beast". I think it is similar to people hankering for a manual and heeling and toeing when clearly a Dual Clutch gearbox is superior and safer in every way (and probably more economical when you factor in clutch wear).

Shall we park it there?


----------



## baileyconstruct (Feb 1, 2011)

Yes but my car is faster ha ha 

Sorry couldn't resist lol


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

baileyconstruct said:


> Yes but my car is faster ha ha
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist lol


Bad man!


----------

