# R35 possibly will be in Europe and for sale



## Swiss Frank (Apr 29, 2008)

I've discovered I'm too old and fat for my JDM R35.

It looks like I can sell it here in Japan for about what I paid, either now, or later through the fall.

I was also toying with the idea of shipping it to Europe for my 3 week summer holidays, though (London and Switzerland).

If I do so, would anyone in the UK (or elsewhere) be interested in purchasing? My intent isn't to profiteer, it just seems that maybe someone in the UK might want it.

The car is gunmetal grey, light grey interior, premium Bose stereo and Thatcham. My all-in purchase price was GBP 44k. I've done the break-in according to manual, it won't have seen a track day, and will have maybe 4000mi or less. Keep in mind that there would be VAT and duty due (see Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) that seem to total 17% for cars.


----------



## supracat (Feb 12, 2008)

seems a pretty good price mate - am sure you'll get some takers - good luck!


----------



## supraman (Mar 25, 2008)

Swiss Frank said:


> I've discovered I'm too old and fat for my JDM R35.


Can you elaborate on this? It concerns me that you've already decided to sell it. Did the Suck-List finally get to you? Is it really that bad?


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Interesting in that one of the colour options is NOT gunmetal grey!


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

good point, who's was the red one i saw you next to the other day then?


----------



## Swiss Frank (Apr 29, 2008)

*u got me*

sorry Fuggles for the slight inaccuracy. Its actually da-ku metaru gure- .

That is if you'll let me transliterate into roman phonoglyphs.


----------



## Swiss Frank (Apr 29, 2008)

*Y*

> Is it really that bad?

Bad's not the word. For a start it does what it says on the tin. I think almost every buyer buys it because its the fastest thing on four feet, and it is, so that is all you need to know. As a bonus it has tunability to get you from the "mocking 911 Turbos" level to the "feeling sorry for 911 Turbos" level.

I think the car makes some sacrifices to get this performance, and HAS to. I'm convinced no maker can present this speed without 4WD, automated dual-clutch, super-tight ratios preventing even manual shifting of the auto, a solid roof giving light-weight chassis strength, and likely, turbos. This rules out alot of stop-light hooliganism, the involvement of shifting, convertibles, and the best engine sounds (which are comprised of more than exhaust sounds). In short, any other car with this type of performance will have these shortcomings (if you even think of them as shortcomings). For me, these points are most of the deal breaker.

Further, there are some sacrifices to hit the price-point and perceived-practicality goal: it uses the FM chassis which means it will never be within 200kg of the comparable Porsche; it is the only car at this performance level with steel brakes (which impact ride/handling strongly I believe--may be the heaviest OEM brakes ever); it has to fit two golf bags for the yanks and has to have rear seats; it has to have run-flats (which I think are part of the grumpy handling). No Porsche or Ferrari (or TVR or Lotus) would mandate runflats for instance. I don't mind these too much except I would have ordered lightweight carbon breaks and axed the runflats in a heartbeat--in other words I would have appreciated the option to tune the car LESS towards price and potential practically and more towards just being a better drive.

Next, the car makes a conscious decision to sacrifice liveability for style, specifically the 20" wheels where 19's would fit and 18's probably could have been made to work, and the sloping rear roof that eliminates practicality, visibility, and the amount of windows that can be rolled down for wind in your hair. For me beauty is a form that arises from function, and IF a car has rear seats I prefer the roofline of the R34 or the M5.

Finally, the area that is intellectually saddening though in practice much smaller concerns than the above: the little details are a very mixed bag. A car should decide to be a convenient car or not; a luxury car or not; a high-tech car or not. This car is instead inconsistently packaged with alot of things I don't need and wouldn't have ordered had they been optional (keyless entry, leather-covered dash), and yet many other things I would have ordered instantly if I could have gotten them (auto-dimming mirrors, auto-tilting mirrors, parking sensors are my big complaints, not so much for "convenience" as just operating the car safely).

Never having had a car with an auto; never having had a car with only two small windows to wind down; never having had a 4WD or turbo-V6, I never realized everything I'd give up with this car. Meanwhile I'm insulted that they make styling decisions and kitting decisions that make it a worse car than it so easily could be.

I've been thinking, if I miss my sun roof or targa top, what about... a convertible? If I miss RWD, what about... midengine? If I miss the character of a BMW V8, what about... a Ferrari? So, I've ordered a manual convertible F430. It'll be nowhere near as fast and alot more expensive, but will tick all those enjoyability boxes. Whether I'm in a traffic jam or in the mountains, I'll have the Ray-Bans on and a smile on my face. I may be dwindling in your rear-view mirrors, but I'll have the wind in my hair, smoke in my wheelwells, and be playing a medley of AC/DC's greatest hits out the muffler with stick-shift and throttle.


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

dude, why keep it in auto mode? why not switch it to manual and shift yourself? i NEVER drive it in auto.

as for going for the 430 instead of the gt-r, i completely agree. i think most people on here though cannot afford the 430 so the gt-r is the ultimate supercar that for a change they can afford. you're just coming to them with a different budget.

it's all interesting as i also think porsche and ferrari owners will find the gt-r lacking the exotic supercar feel. i've come from exotics and would concur. BUT i am happy with my gt-r because it's a bloody amazing piece of kit and i can put my kid in the back comfortably. that was crucial for me. and the 599gtb will not fit in my parking spot...


----------



## supracat (Feb 12, 2008)

agree with tokyogtr on this one - i'm replacing the Testarossa with the GTR and looked at other exotics, but the balance of practicality, VFM, reliability (afraid my italian cars all suffer from bits falling off from time to time!), and a really friendly user community blahblah: ) did it for me! - having also owned a 160,000 mile 300ZX TT which only ever needed tyres and brakes over its life (still original clutch!) also helped.:clap:


----------



## Swiss Frank (Apr 29, 2008)

> dude, why keep it in auto mode? why not switch it to manual and shift yourself? i NEVER drive it in auto.

I have no idea how you do that.

Reviews express suprise that it auto-shifts into 6th by 40kph, but no wonder--6th isn't even that high. Meanwhile 1st through 4th are stacked like pancakes.

Manual shifting I need to shift three-four times by 40kph. What I find is 1) it doesn't work as smoothly as auto since theres no clutch to modulate, 2) doesn't shift immediately so seems a little ragged, 3) I simply can't let go of the paddle as needs to be flipped every second or so, 4) you can't skip gears; in M5, part of my habit of driving it is just go 1st-3rd or 1st-4th.

TokyoGTR, try doing your work run in A and compare your mileage. I mean, A is really really good on this tranny.


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

auto mode is too boring for me though. i need to be in charge.

this car has so much torque that you don't need to shift too much anyway. but i hate suddenly being in 6th. i'm usually hovering between 2nd and 4th.


----------



## AMG_POWER (Nov 20, 2007)

tokyogtr said:


> auto mode is too boring for me though. i need to be in charge.
> 
> this car has so much torque that you don't need to shift too much anyway. but i hate suddenly being in 6th. i'm usually hovering between 2nd and 4th.


that explains your BAD consumption in the other thread lol


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

i do drive it quite aggressively, yes. but that consumption on the other thread was in auto mode and not aggressive.


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

Swiss Frank said:


> > dude, why keep it in auto mode? why not switch it to manual and shift yourself? i NEVER drive it in auto.
> 
> I have no idea how you do that.


Based on that reply I've just added you to my ignore list. FFS.


----------



## Phoenix (Apr 10, 2008)

Swiss Frank said:


> > Is it really that bad?
> 
> Bad's not the word. For a start it does what it says on the tin. I think almost every buyer buys it because its the fastest thing on four feet, and it is, so that is all you need to know. As a bonus it has tunability to get you from the "mocking 911 Turbos" level to the "feeling sorry for 911 Turbos" level.
> 
> ...


GREAT POST SWISS!

Haha. I have other cars to give me the 'smoke and mirrors'. I want to learn what it takes to operate this vehicle at the limit, 'nannies and all'. I don't mind a 'chip' catching some of the incidentals of road operations, allowing me to blast through the apex a little quicker. Damn Yanks! 

I want the fastest, baddest, quickest piece of 4-wheel handling available.

really, *great post*

Oh, one other thing, please. Get yourself a big American V8. You need to experience this at least once in your life. If you want to feel all the possible connections, the Ford 'live axle' and Chevy 'leafs' are a must. :thumbsup:


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

Phoenix said:


> GREAT POST SWISS!
> 
> Haha. I have other cars to give me the 'smoke and mirrors'. I want to learn what it takes to operate this vehicle at the limit, 'nannies and all'. I don't mind a 'chip' catching some of the incidentals of road operations, allowing me to blast through the apex a little quicker. Damn Yanks!
> 
> ...


wow, now i'm totally confused. are you agreeing or is this a new form of sarcasm?


----------



## Phoenix (Apr 10, 2008)

tokyogtr said:


> wow, now i'm totally confused. are you agreeing or is this a new form of sarcasm?


RE: Swiss Post

I don't necessarily agree with the context. I appreciate the honesty. And it was well-written. You learn something from each post. Each input adds to the perspective.

I think the biggest failure of 'Francs' paradigm switch is that it is not concievable to be able to learn the dynamics of the vehicle in such a short period of time (very minimal km), and thus make an informed decision. It takes a while to be able to throw a car into corners. 

This car just doesn't seem to be Francs 'cup of tea'. Franc seems to want a different engine and exhaust melody and.....haha, does not recognize that there is something more than 'A' mode. Apologies if I am oversimplifying. 

P.S. I grew up in Boston, where sarcasm is the primary mode of communication, so that may be part of the confusion.


----------



## supracat (Feb 12, 2008)

A Pats fan by any chance??


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

gotcha...


----------



## Phoenix (Apr 10, 2008)

supracat said:


> A Pats fan by any chance??


*probably:*


----------



## r34mspec (May 30, 2007)

I dont understand........every car mag.journalist,test drivers,pro drivers disagree with him,oh well horses for courses..For me no better car out there for the money or dare i say any money!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mg1942 (Apr 28, 2008)

Nissan should at least add auto-dimming lights. Even mainstream Honda accords have it.


----------



## mg1942 (Apr 28, 2008)

I may get blasted for this too... but Nissan should take some lessons from honda when it comes to interior department. From NSX down to mainstream Civics/Accords... Honda makes the best user-friendly interior, simple no-gimmicks dashboard layout, and high quality buttons compare to other Japanese Big 3. It's also not wonder that Hondas maintain higher resale value than other Japanese Big 3.

GT-R does not need to have Honda/Acura NSX quality interior, it needs to be at least on par with Accord and Civic.

For its money now which car has better interior...?


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

have you actually sat in the gt-r? i can assure you it's not like any other nissan OR honda for that matter. much more luxurious and better laid out.


----------



## jamesbilluk (Aug 10, 2006)

i really like the look of the R35's dash to be honest, also the passenger round dash vents and leather arrangement/stitching look quite ferrari like.


----------



## Phoenix (Apr 10, 2008)

tokyogtr said:


> have you actually sat in the gt-r? i can assure you it's not like any other nissan OR honda for that matter. much more luxurious and better laid out.


Haha! Tokyo! You know MG is a troll right?

Look at his posts:chuckle:


----------



## doggiehowser (Oct 8, 2007)

tokyogtr said:


> have you actually sat in the gt-r? i can assure you it's not like any other nissan OR honda for that matter. much more luxurious and better laid out.


I find everything very intuitive and well-laid out too.

Would prob be better if I could understand enough Japanese to navigate through the MFD  but considering 90% of it deals with the satnav (which doesn't work outside of Japan anyway), I think I am getting by just fine.

Build quality is generally pretty good. I think if there is one glaring "plasticky" item, it'd have to be the MFD knob. That was the cheapest part of the whole interior. Good thing I don't use it much (I use the touchscreen for the most part). And the steering and the leather-wrapped paddleshifts are amazing


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

Phoenix said:


> Haha! Tokyo! You know MG is a troll right?
> 
> Look at his posts:chuckle:


damn, so many porsche trolls on here now. are the admins going to do ANYTHING about it?


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

tokyogtr said:


> damn, so many porsche trolls on here now. are the admins going to do ANYTHING about it?


I find the trolls a nice antidote to the sycophantic fawning of the fanboys.

uke:


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

moleman said:


> I find the trolls a nice antidote to the sycophantic fawning of the fanboys.
> 
> uke:


hahaha... then again, i guess we deserve it for all the [email protected] guys from here post on the porsche sites...


----------



## tokyogtr (Feb 14, 2008)

i do believe swiss frank might be having 2nd thoughts now that his car has had it's first service and he's been caning it... need to get you on the circuit frank... then you'll be smitten...


----------



## supraman (Mar 25, 2008)

tokyogtr said:


> i do believe swiss frank might be having 2nd thoughts now that his car has had it's first service and he's been caning it... need to get you on the circuit frank... then you'll be smitten...


Thank god for that, I was beginning to wonder if he was a troll that was willing to go beyond the call of duty!


----------



## Phoenix (Apr 10, 2008)

tokyogtr said:


> damn, so many porsche trolls on here now. are the admins going to do ANYTHING about it?


RE: MG

he only comes out from under the bridge occasionally...

and the commentary seems to be more bizarre than antagonistic


----------



## supracat (Feb 12, 2008)

tokyogtr said:


> i do believe swiss frank might be having 2nd thoughts now that his car has had it's first service and he's been caning it... need to get you on the circuit frank... then you'll be smitten...


sorry. its early sun morning and im still waking up but could you elaborate on this quote - tongue in cheek??, or is swiss frank seriously questioning his car after road use? for many of us, me included, track use is unlikely, hence im really keen to pic up on any comments good or bad about how the car is for road use, servicing etc- can you elaborate?


----------



## supraman (Mar 25, 2008)

supracat said:


> sorry. its early sun morning and im still waking up but could you elaborate on this quote - tongue in cheek??, or is swiss frank seriously questioning his car after road use? for many of us, me included, track use is unlikely, hence im really keen to pic up on any comments good or bad about how the car is for road use, servicing etc- can you elaborate?


Didn't you see http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/97226-gt-r-top-ten-suck-list.html and http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/97915-r35-possibly-will-europe-sale.html#post903612?

How did you miss those? I thought you read EVERYTHING like me! If you don't then you might want to check out http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/9...o-round-top-gear-test-track-8.html#post905465 and give me a more specific guess for the Top Gear lap.

Anyway, I think tokyogtr's comment suggests that Swiss Frank is now thinking about keeping the GT-R. Any comments Swiss Frank?


----------



## supracat (Feb 12, 2008)

yes - given the longevity of swissfranks initial post i'd forgotten some the content............,
Having re-read it i'm back in tune again....... - thanks for the links.


----------



## Swiss Frank (Apr 29, 2008)

Hi Phoenix,

> Get yourself a big American V8. You need to experience this at least once in your life. If you want to feel all the possible connections, the Ford 'live axle' and Chevy 'leafs' are a must

I think you're being facetious. Only American car(s) I ever had actually had 4-cyl, OHC 2-liter engines from Ford of Germany  OTOH had live actual and cart springs.

OTOH what's ironic that the entire point of IRS was to get the weight of the diff onto the suspension, in other words reducing the unsprung mass. It may be hard to verify, but the huge iron brakes, runflats, and 20" wheels on the GT-R might actually weigh more than my Pintos' rear axles...

In other words, stop going for the reflex, facile argument and ask which car actually has more unsprung weight? Sure it might be the GTR but even if so its probably close. I would have taken carbon discs on my GT-R in a second...


----------

