# A picture that describes my view on the R35 "GTR"



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Found this on the web last night. :chuckle:
It's the perfect picture of what I really think of Nissan's new "pride and glory"... enjoy :squintdan


----------



## Wanabee Kiwi (Mar 31, 2007)

wow, you're cool....


----------



## nino_brown (Mar 23, 2006)

...each to his own


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

Which bit is Renault then? Certainly not the engine...


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

ru' said:


> Which bit is Renault then? Certainly not the engine...


I'm not so sure as to the degree of Renault in this car, but I however agree that it isn't a true GT-R and thus not a worthy successor.

oh wait no.. Gohsn's at the helm of Nissault... damn it's a renault then.... oh well... wasn't going to buy one anyway.


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

This is a very wierd thread.


----------



## Pugwash (Mar 6, 2007)

MeltDown said:


> I'm not so sure as to the degree of Renault in this car, but I however agree that it isn't a true GT-R and thus not a worthy successor.
> 
> oh wait no.. Gohsn's at the helm of Nissault... damn it's a renault then.... oh well... wasn't going to buy one anyway.


So any car produced by Nissan is a Renault????.....right!!


----------



## SmigzyGTR (Mar 20, 2006)

no more drugs for that man!


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

wow, they make a successor in every way and its crap... wow. i know it doesnt LOOK the way most people want it to look, but other than that, its an amazing car and you know it, and cant argue that. LOOKS are going to be differnt from person to person.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Pugwash said:


> So any car produced by Nissan is a Renault????.....right!!


Basically yes. As of 1999, the start of the Nissan-Renault alliance, every single new model has got some sort of distinguished frenchish design, engineering and/or flauds.
Just look at the Primera/G20 P11 for example. in 2000 it all of a sudden got crosseyed... a coincidence? I think not...


----------



## Pharoahe (Mar 11, 2006)

SmigzyGTR said:


> no more drugs for that man!


lol


----------



## GTRJack (Aug 27, 2005)

Aha


----------



## DCD (Jun 28, 2001)

MeltDown said:


> Basically yes. As of 1999, the start of the Nissan-Renault alliance, every single new model has got some sort of distinguished frenchish design, engineering and/or flauds.
> Just look at the Primera/G20 P11 for example. in 2000 it all of a sudden got crosseyed... a coincidence? I think not...


If you don't like it buy something else? Toyota has a lot of exciting machinery on offer


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

What a retarded thread, esp as its so unlike a Renault in every way its unbelivable...


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

mindlessoath said:


> wow, they make a successor in every way and its crap... wow. i know it doesnt LOOK the way most people want it to look, but other than that, its an amazing car and you know it, and cant argue that. LOOKS are going to be differnt from person to person.


The R35's promblem isn't that its looks are off. Don't get me wrong, it's not in any way ugly, and it probably goes like Stig. The main reason why it's not to be considered a true GT-R is the concept of which its build on. "A supercar designed from the ground up" as Nissan it self describes it. ie: the antibody of the original GT-R Idea; "family saloon gone mad". Not that I in any way oppose a "pure bred" schemed supercar, but as this opposes the "GT-R codex", it would be more natural to categorize the "GTR" amongst the Z cars. It doesn't fit in 100% there either, it should be a car of its own, but at least amongst the Z's it wouldn't break with the Skyline GT-R heratige. GT-R, and Skyline for that matter, should have died with Nissan...


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

They are aware it's different, hence calling it the GTR with no mention of Skyline at all...


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

What's even more disturbing is the way Ghosn describes the new "GTR". In an interview on gtrnissan.com he says the car is deliberately made to appeal towards people who have longed for a GT-R ever since they first saw it on a playstation game. Or in other words its deliberately made into the fasion accessory of the modern car pop-culture, which even further differenciates it from the old GT-R.


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

It kicks ass, just like every other GT-R has. What's your problem with that?

Besides, that's a z-tune in the pic not your average GT-R so that says it all about the author. Toowit toowoo in my book.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

ru' said:


> They are aware it's different, hence calling it the GTR with no mention of Skyline at all...


Yes, but that's only a slight improvement, as they sort of openly admits they only use the name to sell the new car. Which ofcourse is clever, from a buisniss point of view, but rather unethical considered the GT-R's heratige and well established fanbase.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Howsie said:


> It kicks ass, just like every other GT-R has. What's your problem with that?
> 
> Besides, that's a z-tune in the pic not your average GT-R so that says it all about the author. Toowit toowoo in my book.


I take it you know the author of the pic then? It's not me if that's what you're saying. Ofcourse the z-tune isn't a normal R34 GT-R, but then again a normal GT-R isn't quite a normal car either. Besides it's the interpretation of the picture that matters...
And yes, I'm quite sure the new "GTR" "kicks ass" but so does the new BMW M5, the upperclass snob's boy-toy racer, and the fact that some of the advertisement pics of the new "GTR" included a matching golfbag-set just makes it worse.


----------



## R33 STIG (Nov 29, 2007)

You, Meltclown - clearly haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. Stay off the glue in future.. :thumbsup:


----------



## diddy_p (Oct 5, 2006)

lol your post is a nice way to get a reaction!!

since when was mr. ghosn stupid? could you bring back a company on the brink of bankruptcy into profitability and create an automotive alliance that works this well? carlos is one of the great automotive CEOs of our time.

also the gtr hasnt a hint of renault as far as i know... but in a weird way i see what you mean about the gtr being more Z, I would say more ZX however... and the 300zx z32 TT was a great car!!


----------



## stealth (Jul 6, 2004)

Mr Meltdowns clearly having one ,I have not a clue what he is on about ,talk about tieing yourself in knots


----------



## AJFleming (Feb 25, 2003)

So is a Ferrari F430 Scuderia just a Fiat then? 

Anyone with any sense is gonna respect a car that cost <£50,000 has 470+BHP and some of the best gadgets and hardware around.


----------



## diddy_p (Oct 5, 2006)

the guy has lost it. i think he should start his own car company.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

hahahaha.... :chuckle:
This is rather hillarious actually... here you guys pack yourselves into a bloody comunity, where every one of you's like: "omfg I cannot wait until the gtr comes, its so awsome!" "why's middlehurst so slow?! I want a new gtr now!" "awh that new gtr's so sweet!" "damn, just look at that thing, man that new gtr's truly something" etc... but when someone else comes along and disagrees, it's suddenly unheard of that anyone can think such negative thoughts about this "engineering marvel". 
Just because I believe the new GTR's not as great as everybody else might think, I'm suddenly on drugs, sniffing glue and whatnot? 
Wow... you guys are truly something... :GrowUp: (<-for crying out loud!)


----------



## Peely (Jan 27, 2008)

MeltDown said:


> hahahaha.... :chuckle:
> This is rather hillarious actually... here you guys pack yourselves into a bloody comunity, where every one of you's like: "omfg I cannot wait until the gtr comes, its so awsome!" "why's middlehurst so slow?! I want a new gtr now!" "awh that new gtr's so sweet!" "damn, just look at that thing, man that new gtr's truly something" etc... but when someone else comes along and disagrees, it's suddenly unheard of that anyone can think such negative thoughts about this "engineering marvel".
> Just because I believe the new GTR's not as great as everybody else might think, I'm suddenly on drugs, sniffing glue and whatnot?
> Wow... you guys are truly something... :GrowUp: (<-for crying out loud!)



Ahhhh, right, you HAVE seen and driven the new GTR then ?


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Peely said:


> Ahhhh, right, you HAVE seen and driven the new GTR then ?


You obviously don't pay much attention when reading, do you?


----------



## Nick 200sx (Jun 16, 2003)

Whats with brand snobbery? Who gives a flying fark what the badge says or what the history is. If it drives well and appeals to you it should be fine. What pisses me off more are people who have cars that they dont use as its intended for.


----------



## jae (Aug 28, 2002)

*So you don't like the new GTR?*

Fine. But the post that started this thread was hardly an unbiased statement of personal reasons why you think the new GTR is not the be all and end all that it is being touted as in some areas.

Plus picking the GTR Register as a venue for this piece of trolling was almost guaranteed to incite the responses you recieved.

I am not a big fan of the monster's looks, but I will admit it is a technological marvel being marketed in an astute way. The R35 is an evolution from a fifty year heritage that does justice to the marque GT-R.

Your pissant whining about Renault and Ghosn reveals your attention seeking motives. Here's some attention. Now **** off.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Nick 200sx said:


> Whats with brand snobbery? Who gives a flying fark what the badge says or what the history is. If it drives well and appeals to you it should be fine. What pisses me off more are people who have cars that they dont use as its intended for.


So you agree then that only golfplaying snobs should buy and use this car?


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Again I have to say it's really amusing pissing you guys off :chuckle:


----------



## Peely (Jan 27, 2008)

MeltDown said:


> You obviously don't pay much attention when reading, do you?



Yep ! read every word !!

What I was referring to was your previous post saying;

_This is rather hillarious actually... here you guys pack yourselves into a bloody comunity, where every one of you's like: "omfg I cannot wait until the gtr comes, its so awsome!" "why's middlehurst so slow?! I want a new gtr now!" "awh that new gtr's so sweet!" "damn, just look at that thing, man that new gtr's truly something" etc... but when someone else comes along and disagrees, it's suddenly unheard of that anyone can think such negative thoughts about this "engineering marvel".
Just because I believe the new GTR's not as great as everybody else might think, I'm suddenly on drugs, sniffing glue and whatnot?
Wow... you guys are truly something... (<-for crying out loud!)_

You make out like we are all wrong and you are right ?
Unless you have actually seen and driven the car, I fail to see, unless you are referring just to the looks of it, how you can dismiss the car for being part of Renault or Nissan and cannot be classed in the same group as previous GTR's ?!!

Did you expect anything else than the response you have recieved ?...................No, I would guess not !


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

You're still not grasping what I'm on about though. Let me put it simple for you:
I don't recognize the new GTR as a GTR, because it's breaking with the scheme and tradition that made an old GTR a true GTR. However, I will admit the R35 is not bad looking and since the engine at least is all japanese, it's probably able to outrun the lot of its rivals.

This is my opinion based on what I know of the previous generations of Skyline/GTR and the new one. Others may have different opinions and I respect that. I created this thread partually to provoke, but also to inform and discuss, as I really don't see much of con-GTR threads here, although I know not all of you like this car.


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

MeltDown said:


> I take it you know the author of the pic then? It's not me if that's what you're saying..


I know that they don't know what they are talking about, whoever they are.



MeltDown said:


> Ofcourse the z-tune isn't a normal R34 GT-R, but then again a normal GT-R isn't quite a normal car either.


I considered my R34 a normal car thanks very much. I'm not sure what your point is, or even if you have one at all.



MeltDown said:


> And yes, I'm quite sure the new "GTR" "kicks ass" but so does the new BMW M5, the upperclass snob's boy-toy racer, and the fact that some of the advertisement pics of the new "GTR" included a matching golfbag-set just makes it worse.


The M5 is a great car that does many things very well. So is the R35.

Bored now.


----------



## GavGTR (Jan 12, 2004)

MeltDown said:


> You're still not grasping what I'm on about though. Let me put it simple for you:
> I don't recognize the new GTR as a GTR, because it's breaking with the scheme and tradition that made an old GTR a true GTR.


This is what Nissan stated many years ago when developing the "GTR".
It was going to be a radically different design, but the ideals of performance was still the overriding factor.



MeltDown said:


> . However, I will admit the R35 is not bad looking and since the engine at least is all japanese, it's probably able to outrun the lot of its rivals.
> 
> This is my opinion based on what I know of the previous generations of Skyline/GTR and the new one. Others may have different opinions and I respect that. I created this thread partually to provoke, but also to inform and discuss, as I really don't see much of con-GTR threads here, although I know not all of you like this car.


Well this site is Pro GTR forum, but not limited too. So you should except some rather uncuritous responses especially when you go into whind up user mode!

However the GTR for me, the underlying engine and drive train, handling package technology is wonderful. The bodyshape I'm not so sure about to this day. But once I hop in one and go for a blast I'm pretty sure I'll be putting a deposit down.


----------



## Peely (Jan 27, 2008)

MeltDown said:


> I don't recognize the new GTR as a GTR, because it's breaking with the scheme and tradition that made an old GTR a true GTR. ,


Time to move on buddy, ever heard of new technology?

It's faster, handles better and is in my opinion a definate move forward, and again in my opinion, looks great !

Maybe you are one of the people who thinks we should keep with tradition, and is of the same opinion as my Grandad ? Sorry, you're living in the past !

Onwards and upwards !!:chuckle:


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

MeltDown said:


> The R35's promblem isn't that its looks are off. Don't get me wrong, it's not in any way ugly, and it probably goes like Stig. The main reason why it's not to be considered a true GT-R is the concept of which its build on. "A supercar designed from the ground up" as Nissan it self describes it. ie: the antibody of the original GT-R Idea; "family saloon gone mad". Not that I in any way oppose a "pure bred" schemed supercar, but as this opposes the "GT-R codex", it would be more natural to categorize the "GTR" amongst the Z cars. It doesn't fit in 100% there either, it should be a car of its own, but at least amongst the Z's it wouldn't break with the Skyline GT-R heratige. GT-R, and Skyline for that matter, should have died with Nissan...


you think a gtr should be the same in every way? thats BS... as long as it superproceeds over the last gen, it will be better. nissan needed to ditch the strait six and get something better, also everything else. there is just no way they can build a new GT-R thats going to make money and perform and compete without new technology. using all old technology is going to make nissan die and loose money.

would you rather have a GT-R or not? and if you would get a new one would you pay 150k+ more to get a ztune type? cause thats what its going to take to get a new gt-r based on older technology.


----------



## stealth (Jul 6, 2004)

MeltDown said:


> You're still not grasping what I'm on about though. Let me put it simple for you:
> I don't recognize the new GTR as a GTR, because it's breaking with the scheme and tradition that made an old GTR a true GTR. However, I will admit the R35 is not bad looking and since the engine at least is all japanese, it's probably able to outrun the lot of its rivals.
> 
> This is my opinion based on what I know of the previous generations of Skyline/GTR and the new one. Others may have different opinions and I respect that. I created this thread partually to provoke, but also to inform and discuss, as I really don't see much of con-GTR threads here, although I know not all of you like this car.



Well your outdated by 3 months ,we discusesd the car plus and minus points 3 months ago at least, some of the members have been to the launch in japan and we all got the feedback and info we needed .Anyway bye bye now:wavey:


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

Troll.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

To a certain extent I agree with _meltdown_. When Nissan built the first GTs, they took a well tuned car and made it something very different to compete. Originally the GTs were only made legal for homologation purposes. The first GT-Rs were supposed to be the same but the press reaction was such that they went into full production. However the origin of the species was not that it would be a road car but that it would be a race car that, to get around the rules, they would sanction in small numbers for the road. Having been taken in by the press reaction they went into full production. So, behind it alll was the premises that the GT-R should be a race car first and foremost and numbers would be made for the road.

The R35 set out to be a car (paraphrasing) "that you can take to the shops, let your Mum drive, and still track it at weekends". Clearly that's not the heritage of the original GT-R. Whilst I understand why Nissan has done this. To compete with other performance car manufacturers such as Porsche. To produce a top brand. And to make a car that other owners would aspire to. It does not follow the origin of the species. In hindsight, the Skyline Coupe would have been better off being called the 3500Z (or something) and this car called the Skyline, with a much more hardcore version being called the GT-R.

All that said, we have what we have and the car is still something else in terms of performance. perhpas it's been steralised somewhat for the driver but that's the price you pay for appealing to a wider audience. A GT-R it is, A Godzilla it aint.


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

Are we talking about standard Skyline GTRs here? I know which I'd prefer if offered a standard Skyline GTR or a standard GTR. Let's face it, as standard the Skyline GTRs are somewhat weak (imho)...


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

Give it a chance John, the R32 wasn't a Godzilla straight out of the factory - it will mature.


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Don't get me wrong. I love the car and was truly impressed with it when I saw it; but it has been designed with a perspective different to any previous GT-R


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

basically the 350z couldnt handel GT-R performance without alot of money in modifications, and even then it was sub-par to the competition out there. nissan needed to create something new.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Fuggles said:


> To a certain extent I agree with _meltdown_. When Nissan built the first GTs, they took a well tuned car and made it something very different to compete. Originally the GTs were only made legal for homologation purposes. The first GT-Rs were supposed to be the same but the press reaction was such that they went into full production. However the origin of the species was not that it would be a road car but that it would be a race car that, to get around the rules, they would sanction in small numbers for the road. Having been taken in by the press reaction they went into full production. So, behind it alll was the premises that the GT-R should be a race car first and foremost and numbers would be made for the road.
> 
> The R35 set out to be a car (paraphrasing) "that you can take to the shops, let your Mum drive, and still track it at weekends". Clearly that's not the heritage of the original GT-R. Whilst I understand why Nissan has done this. To compete with other performance car manufacturers such as Porsche. To produce a top brand. And to make a car that other owners would aspire to. It does not follow the origin of the species. In hindsight, the Skyline Coupe would have been better off being called the 3500Z (or something) and this car called the Skyline, with a much more hardcore version being called the GT-R.
> 
> All that said, we have what we have and the car is still something else in terms of performance. perhpas it's been steralised somewhat for the driver but that's the price you pay for appealing to a wider audience. A GT-R it is, A Godzilla it aint.


Ah now that's an answer! :thumbsup:


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

ru' said:


> Are we talking about standard Skyline GTRs here? I know which I'd prefer if offered a standard Skyline GTR or a standard GTR. Let's face it, as standard the Skyline GTRs are somewhat weak (imho)...


Yes, that's true from a perfomance point of view, but keep in mind what the GTR used to be, what it used to stand for and what it meant. Also keep in mind the reason why the Skyline GTR only produced 280bhp from stock in the first place. It wouldn't be that much of a difference between the Skyline GTR and the GTR if the Skyline's "chokehold" had been released.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

Nissan has sought to differentiate the GT-R name from Skyline for years, ever since the debut of the R32 GT-R. "Nissan GT-R" was used in print and in the popular press, with Skyline being downplayed, at behest of Nissan.

Nissan engineers began deliberating on how to actually separate GT-R from sedan-based Skylines during the LeMans years of the 400R. The plan for a GT-R apart from Skyline was intended for years before Ghosn ever arrived on the scene. 

Therefore, the argument that such an ethos appearing in the new R35 is contrary to Nissan's aims is false.



Moreover, for global export, a new idea for the GT-R, the car had to appeal to a broader base than just JDM/Pacific Rim cultists. Nissan has been expert at walking this line between mainstream appeal and hardcore requirements, hence the differing modes of ride quality and all other implements. 

The initial rolllout for the R35 is aimed at broadening the appeal of the GT-R and to establish Nissan as a supercar building manufacturer. And even at this measure, the R35 is yet not for everyone as it has the obvious practicality issues that faces anyone purchasing an expensive sports car.



The R35 is designed by the same person who designed the R34 GT-R, a Japanese man. The cues are evident in the new car whilst appealing to a new direction. 

No part or piece of the R35 is derivative of a French likeness or car. The staff developing the GT-R is mostly Japanese, if not entirely overseen by Japanese ethos. 

The notion that the GT-R is a French derivative of form or design is false. 



The R35 GT-R is beyond in performance any prior GT-R. It will be offered in differing models, with the base version what we are currently seeing for sale. 

Much harder-edged versions of the R35 are already being designed and/or are already designed and being tested. The generation cycle for the R35 will be 3 to 5 years in length. 

During this cycle, myriad changes will affect the GT-R, not least of which will be a GT3RS-type of track model that will more than likely be roughly on par with the R34 Z-Tune. 

And there will more than likely be a 3rd NISMO model beyond even that. The R35 will be homologated in every way intended for competition use as were the original GT-Rs of yore. 

A global rollout that precedes this homologation does not invalidate nor preclued the R35's production chassis or engine from undergoing such measures. 




The personal preference issue of the new to the old is a debate of opinion that will continue for as long as newer models of cars undergo platform and body style changes. This is applicable to any make of car, from any marque.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

MeltDown said:


> Again I have to say it's really amusing pissing you guys off :chuckle:


Your not pissing me off


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

bonzelite. I think Hiroshi Tamura might have something to say on the subject of the designer for the R34 nd R35 being the same man. He's in Geneva right now, I'll ask him when I see him on Friday


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

what other nissan cars used the r34 chassie? same for the r33?


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

"chassis"

not chassie


----------



## jaycabs (Nov 16, 2007)

just watching the video with the gtr and the porsche 997 turbo on youtube says it all to how good the gtr is with the way the porsche was struggling for grip in the corners and the gtr just going quite smoothly like it was very easy and looked like the gtr could have gone even quicker round the bends.

i know the gtr doesnt have that heritage but just out of curiosity i my self havent seen any videos of proper races with R33's ? . i mean races like the R32's had ??????? i know that might sound dumb but theres so much ive looked at with GTR's but can never recall seeing races with the 33


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

The GT-R is not a French-inspired car.


from:
Star Motoring

excerpt:
One of the cars on show in the main exhibition area was the latest in the Skyline range, the G35, whose proud designer, Hiroshi Hasegawa, was at hand to talk about his “baby”. 

Hasegawa, 48, who joined Nissan in 1982 and is currently chief designer of the Product Design Department, also developed the GT-R Proto, which was shown at the 2005 Tokyo Motor Show, and had a hand in the design development of a number of cars including the Silvia (S15) and the Skyline (R34). 


------------
from:
here

"The born-in-Japan Nissan GT-R, now on the roads worldwide Dedication to good design, functionality, and truly exceptional performance

The Nissan GT-R embodies Nissan's ultimate passion for the automobile. Based on original Nissan concepts nurtured in Japan, it carries forward a proud heritage.

This is the first globally marketed GT-R in the history of the line, which started with the PGC10 GT-R in 1969. Through the process of design I worked to give this car an overwhelming presence, persistently expressing the originality of Japanese car culture. This is why the body is not derived from a production sedan or coupe, but is one of a kind, the first in GT-R history. This is our ultimate, most faithful rendition of the GT-R redefined.

What makes a Nissan GT-R boils down to two ideas: "design backed by function to realize exceptional performance," and "continuation of the original design heritage." In terms of high performance and function, the Nissan GT-R body was forged by its air stream. The cockpit offers the optimum layout for the driver. Landmark features from the Nissan GT-R design history that the new model maintains are the edgy box-shape of the PGC10 GT-R of 1969, the four round taillamps of the KPGC110 GT-R (1973 ), and the grille opening of the R34 GT-R (1999), a symbolic use of the cooling feature in the design.

Keeping in mind a global stage for this born-in-Japan car, I also designed it to express the flavor of modern Japanese culture.

We based the design of the new Nissan GT-R on these ideas and values.

The sense of true high performance and function, superb aerodynamic performance and ultimate dedication to good design make the new Nissan GT-R almost intimidating relative to other sports cars. It expresses an originality found in no other, stands out as one of a kind, breaks through established ideas of what a sports car should be, and rises to the challenge of creating a new world of sports cars. "

---------
R&T
Chief Designer Hiroshi Hasegawa said he wanted to create something that would be instantly associated with what he calls "Japanese modern culture." One primary example of this is Japanese anime, and, as it relates to the GT-R, the science-fiction robot, Gundam.

"I wanted to take something like Gundam — a purely mechanical object that moves like a living creature — and instill that quality into the GT-R. We didn't exactly draw direct inspiration from the robot's appearance; we just wanted to make the GT-R look like a living mechanical entity with a distinct Japanese spirit," Hasegawa explained. 

------------

excerpt:
The collaborative development of the Nissan GT-R multifunction meter was presented - gran-turismo.com

Mr. Yamauchi replied “I felt that because the GT-R is a national treasure of Japan, we had to recreate it with total realism. From the external form to the texture of the surface coatings, we asked Mr. Hasegawa (Nissan Motors designer in charge of designing the new model GT-R) to check it over and over again. Of course, since this a car with the ability to change the history of Japanese sports cars, we obsessed over recreating the handling”.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

Fuggles said:


> bonzelite. I think Hiroshi Tamura might have something to say on the subject of the designer for the R34 nd R35 being the same man. He's in Geneva right now, I'll ask him when I see him on Friday


Sounds good to me. Ask him, too, the names of the other designers. There is a team of people doing the designs. Hasegawa is the head. Be very inquisitive. Take notes if necessary.

Lots of my literature is all in Japanese.


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

There is as much Renault inside the new GTR, as there was a VELSATIS engine in the 350Z. 

Renault might be in the F1, but that doesn`t help the french car industry much. I doupt that Renault (the french industry ) can show the japanese car industry (here Nissan) in just one single task , who the job has to be done.

French industry vs japanese can be resumes like this:
The french build the TGV high speed train first, recently they showed they could run it 600kph on normal rails.
The japanese Shinkansen does only 280kph a some sections, and they didn`t build the first high speed train.

At the end the TGV is a unreliable, dirty, unflexible, belated train chaos and the Shinkansen is the cleanest, biggest and best working high speed train systhem in the world.

By the way after the 600kph run, that TGV was ready for the junk yard and 25km of rails and electric cabling had to be replaced.:chuckle: . . .Hypocrisy can be so fun.:chuckle:


----------



## SuperClarkey (Aug 20, 2004)

imho, either buy one or shut up bitching about it,


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

bonzelite said:


> The GT-R is not a French-inspired car.


Not true. Any product developed under a reign consisting of a certain type of leaders, is guaranteed to contain traces of that reign in its design and engineering. This because decisions made by the people in charge, concerning the product, will be different from the decisions made by f.ex a previous reign of leaders. Thus affecting the product.
For example, a shoe made in China, but by a Japanese brand, is considered a Japanese shoe.
Now I of course don't think the GTR's a French car, its certainly not, but I also rather doubt theres absolutely no traces of Renault in it...


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

I think this guy is a Beetle driver.



MeltDown said:


> Found this on the web last night. :chuckle:
> It's the perfect picture of what I really think of Nissan's new "pride and glory"... enjoy :squintdan


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

Fuggles said:


> Don't get me wrong. I love the car and was truly impressed with it when I saw it; but it has been designed with a perspective different to any previous GT-R


Indeed. It's evolved as have our requirments from a 'sports car'. I'm interested to see what the spec-v will be like. Any news on that front?


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

R33_GTS-t said:


> I think this guy is a Beetle driver.


Not quite... I currently drive a P10 SRi. Yes, I know, not a skyline :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: but there's a really good reason why I'm not in the possession of such a car. In Norway it's just about impossible to own one legally for road usage. The only way to get hold of a road legal one, is to buy one that has been registered from before the ban, and that hurts the wallet seriously! A road legal R33 GTS-t f.ex is priced to approx 35k £....


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

*sigh*
For faqs sake it's like having to see your grandfather dressed in ladies underwear...
And this is the car that'll inspire a new generation of GTR fans?
I promise you, after the launch in America, pink GTR's will roam the streets of Beverly Hills with bimbo's fixin' their hair, nails, make-up, whining on the phone about shoes and driving at the same time. Like they did with the 350Z.

Nissan should at least rename it to 350GT or something, to not ruin the GTR heritage any further... 
It's just so bloody disappointing that Nissan would do such a thing and yet have the guts to call it a GTR...


----------



## Pugwash (Mar 6, 2007)

MeltDown said:


> *sigh*
> For faqs sake it's like having to see your grandfather dressed in ladies underwear...
> And this is the car that'll inspire a new generation of GTR fans?
> I promise you, after the launch in America, pink GTR's will roam the streets of Beverly Hills with bimbo's fixin' their hair, nails, make-up, whining on the phone about shoes and driving at the same time. Like they did with the 350Z.
> ...


----------



## AJFleming (Feb 25, 2003)

Meltdown, you havent answered my question. Is a Ferrari F430 Scuderia just a Fiat?


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

AJFleming said:


> Meltdown, you havent answered my question. Is a Ferrari F430 Scuderia just a Fiat?


I really don't know enough about Ferrari to answer that correctly. It might be, or it might not be, but as far as I've been told Ferrari has always stuck to one concept, making super cars of various degrees, and thus don't seem to have been affected that much by Fiat.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Pugwash said:


> MeltDown said:
> 
> 
> > *sigh*
> ...


Ehm.... what?


----------



## akasakaR33 (Oct 10, 2005)

bonzelite said:


> Sounds good to me. Ask him, too, the names of the other designers. There is a team of people doing the designs. Hasegawa is the head. Be very inquisitive. Take notes if necessary.
> 
> Lots of my literature is all in Japanese.


Bonzelite - you are right, Hasegawa was the chief DESIGNER of the car. And there were others on the team, including Taguchi, Ono, Nishimura, Sato, etc. So yeah, Hasegawa's responsible for the LOOKS (interior AND exterior) of the car. And, he's been on the GT-R design team since 2000, which means he designed the GT-R Concept that showed at TMS in 2001. But not the R32-R34 GT-Rs. But the GT-R has never been solely about looks, right?

Kazutoshi Mizuno is the man behind the mechanicals of the car, and overall development. Incidentally, he also participated in the development of the R32 and R34 GT-Rs. He did not participate in the development of the R33 GT-R, as he was assigned to racing activities at the time.

As for Tamura, yes, he was the man in charge of the R34 GT-R, but not the mechanicals - that was left up to Kozo Watanabe, who also developed the R33 GT-R.

So - are we talking about looks, or mechanicals?

AND - ALL of my sources are in Japanese. That doesn't mean they are 100% accurate, but there won't be any errors in the translation...


----------



## akasakaR33 (Oct 10, 2005)

Fuggles said:


> To a certain extent I agree with _meltdown_. When Nissan built the first GTs, they took a well tuned car and made it something very different to compete. Originally the GTs were only made legal for homologation purposes. The first GT-Rs were supposed to be the same but the press reaction was such that they went into full production. However the origin of the species was not that it would be a road car but that it would be a race car that, to get around the rules, they would sanction in small numbers for the road. Having been taken in by the press reaction they went into full production. So, behind it alll was the premises that the GT-R should be a race car first and foremost and numbers would be made for the road.
> 
> The R35 set out to be a car (paraphrasing) "that you can take to the shops, let your Mum drive, and still track it at weekends". Clearly that's not the heritage of the original GT-R. Whilst I understand why Nissan has done this. To compete with other performance car manufacturers such as Porsche. To produce a top brand. And to make a car that other owners would aspire to. It does not follow the origin of the species. In hindsight, the Skyline Coupe would have been better off being called the 3500Z (or something) and this car called the Skyline, with a much more hardcore version being called the GT-R.
> 
> All that said, we have what we have and the car is still something else in terms of performance. perhpas it's been steralised somewhat for the driver but that's the price you pay for appealing to a wider audience. A GT-R it is, A Godzilla it aint.


Fuggles - I had a chance to meet with Ito-san, and Watanabe-san (chief engineers behind the R32 and R33 GT-Rs, respectively) and I can tell you that, although they didn't come out and say it exactly, neither consider the new GT-R to be a "GT-R" as they would define the GT-R to be. Their definition is fundamentally as you describe.

Further, while Nissan chose not to use the "Skyline" name in the new GT-R, Ito-san pointed out that Nissan is clearly aware of the Skyline heritage, and has tried to suggest Skyline DNA (short of using the name itself) in order to evoke the image - for example the signature trademark rear lamps. As for the decision to use the V-6, and not a straight 6 - well, the V-6 is the only viable engine Nissan had, it seems...

No flaming please, just relaying what these two gents (who, of any person in the WORLD would be the authoritative sources) said publicly just last weekend...


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

MeltDown said:


> I promise you, after the launch in America, pink GTR's will roam the streets of Beverly Hills with bimbo's fixin' their hair, nails, make-up, whining on the phone about shoes and driving at the same time. Like they did with the 350Z.


Hate to be the one to tell you this but it has happened to SKYLINES already  

GTR's, GTST's, GTT's - all of them have been gayed up in some way or another as they are so cheap to buy and the less desirable humans can get their hands on them.

Now :GrowUp: pull your "Old GTR is best" attitude from out of your arse and admit that the new GTR is still a GREAT car.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

so far this guy still doesnt have an arguement. mabe he needs to make it more clear. or do more research first.


----------



## Pharoahe (Mar 11, 2006)

AJFleming said:


> Meltdown, you havent answered my question. Is a Ferrari F430 Scuderia just a Fiat?


I might answer this if you like

Fiat is the mother company, Reanult and Nissan are two companies that work together. So you can't really compare them imo.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

mindlessoath said:


> so far this guy still doesnt have an arguement. mabe he needs to make it more clear. or do more research first.


Incorrect.


MeltDown said:


> I don't recognize the new GTR as a GTR, because it's breaking with the scheme and tradition that made an old GTR a true GTR. However, I will admit the R35 is not bad looking and since the engine at least is all japanese, it's probably able to outrun the lot of its rivals.


The 2008/09 GTR is a great car as a car, but a true GTR it is not, because it is not made in code with the old GTR's. The new GTR is designed from ground up as a completely different concept compared to the old GTR's. 
So let me put it simple for you _mindlessoath_:
In my opinion the new GTR is not a GTR, because it literally is NOT a GTR. It's a completely different and new car. That is why I do not recognize it as a GTR, because Nissan only gave it that name to sell the damn thing.

Clear enough for you?


----------



## callumGTR (Jun 6, 2006)

in a word................................................................no!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Well then let me clear this up...

I don't recongnize the R35 as a GTR. I don't believe it's worthy that title.

There. If you can't understand my reasoning, then don't ask....


----------



## Peely (Jan 27, 2008)

MeltDown said:


> Well then let me clear this up...
> 
> I don't recongnize the R35 as a GTR. I don't believe it's worthy that title.
> 
> There. If you can't understand my reasoning, then don't ask....



Oh well ......................I'm sure we'll all sleep better tonight then !!


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

HELLO HAVE I OPENED THE DOOR TO THE INTRAENET??
IS THIS MY CD TRAY 
LOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOL


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Blow Dog said:


> This is a very wierd thread.


Well, you're not exactly helping as far as sanity conserns :chuckle:


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

MeltDown said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> The 2008/09 GTR is a great car as a car, but a true GTR it is not, because it is not made in code with the old GTR's. The new GTR is designed from ground up as a completely different concept compared to the old GTR's.
> So let me put it simple for you _mindlessoath_:
> ...


LIKE I SAID BEFORE! IF NISSAN WANTS TO COMPETE AGAINST OTHER CARS IT WILL NEED TO CREATE A PERFORMER FROM THE GROUND UP. USING EXISTING TECHNOLOGY BE IT the OLD R34 or 350Z chassie etc... WILL NOT WORK, it would NOT compete against porcshe etc. nissan NEEDED TO CREATE AN ALL NEW BEST. THEY DID create a Z-tune, but thats the problem, it cost wayyyyyyyyyy to much to do so... a much better and more cost effective solution was to create something new. Z-Tune great car! but to costly and even less numbers of cars could be made.

not to mention the 350z chassis is much better as proven in a best motoring episode where they transplanted an rb26dett into the 350z and compaired everything. so taking that in mind, they created an even more ultimate car that performs better than any previous generation... doesnt matter anything else, the GT-R was performance and this car is performance!

sorry you dont like change or anything differnt, most of those people are racist in my own opinion.

in any case, nissan got away with taking old cars and sticking larger engine in, and taking doors off, but thats in the past. sorry its not done like that anymore (btw what other cars shared the R34/R33 chassis?)


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> Not true. Any product developed under a reign consisting of a certain type of leaders, is guaranteed to contain traces of that reign in its design and engineering. This because decisions made by the people in charge, concerning the product, will be different from the decisions made by f.ex a previous reign of leaders. Thus affecting the product.
> For example, a shoe made in China, but by a Japanese brand, is considered a Japanese shoe.
> Now I of course don't think the GTR's a French car, its certainly not, but I also rather doubt theres absolutely no traces of Renault in it...


Stock ownership and CEO notwithstanding, the GT-R is not a French-inspired design. None of the design process involved how they could French the car up. See the links I provided.

If you can find a Renault sourced piece of information that cites a hand in the actual design process for the GT-R, I will stand corrected.

Many marques today are owned outright or jointly owned by a few top companies. This doesn't strip these subsequent makes under the main company of their identities. 

Per your reasoning, Ferrari Spa, Maserati Spa, Alfa Romeo, are all Fiat derivative designs and they clearly are not. Each retains it's own identity under the parent company.

Parts sharing is more common today as expenses for production have risen. But a new Maser is not a Ferrari. Go look at some and you will see the differences despite the engines being sourced from the same basic designs. 


Moreover, the KPGC10 and KPGC110 are the original GT-Rs. Therefore, the R32, 33, 34s are not GT-Rs either because they were completely redesigned from the former cars in design and mechanical properties. The KPGC110 differed even from the KPGC10, so that isn't a GT-R either.


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

MeltDown said:


> Well then let me clear this up...
> 
> I don't recongnize the R35 as a GTR. I don't believe it's worthy that title.
> 
> There. If you can't understand my reasoning, then don't ask....


I still don't get you. The 'old' GT-R was a demonstration by Nissan that it can produce a car that kicks the ass of stuff that costs twice as much. What's changed with the R35? If anything, the R35 is even more capable than the 'old' GT-R. It's less of a compromise IMO.


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

I'm fine with MeltDown "not recognising" the GTR; that's a bit odd but okay. We're all entitled to our opinions (I voted 'troll' earlier; that was my opinion and maybe others wouldn't agree).

However, it's the references to 'French' etc., and that somehow the people who own/drive a car somehow change what the car is, that puzzle me.


----------



## Robbie J (Jan 8, 2005)

The R35 was designed in Japan by a Nissan team. A UK Nissan design team did some detail work on parts of it but the team looks very Japanese from the picture in 2003 to 2007 in the GTR Motorfan book. You can tell this by the fact that they area little shorter and have different eyes then Frenchmen.

I was talking to the a guy from the UK team about it. The 350z was "sculped" by a UK guy from Cov university BTW.

So all this talk about the R35 I take it you have driven it?


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

mindlessoath said:


> LIKE I SAID BEFORE! IF NISSAN WANTS TO COMPETE AGAINST OTHER CARS IT WILL NEED TO CREATE A PERFORMER FROM THE GROUND UP. USING EXISTING TECHNOLOGY BE IT the OLD R34 or 350Z chassie etc... WILL NOT WORK, it would NOT compete against porcshe etc. nissan NEEDED TO CREATE AN ALL NEW BEST. THEY DID create a Z-tune, but thats the problem, it cost wayyyyyyyyyy to much to do so... a much better and more cost effective solution was to create something new. Z-Tune great car! but to costly and even less numbers of cars could be made.
> 
> not to mention the 350z chassis is much better as proven in a best motoring episode where they transplanted an rb26dett into the 350z and compaired everything. so taking that in mind, they created an even more ultimate car that performs better than any previous generation... doesnt matter anything else, the GT-R was performance and this car is performance!
> 
> ...


Read it again, and slowly this time... The 2008/09 Nissan GTR is a great car as a car. 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it (mostly) other than its name. When going through the trouble of making a car, a GTR, then they should do just that, but they have not. Instead they chose to build a completely new car from scratch. There's nothing wrong with that. Not at all. If only they had given it a suitable name, I would've taken it under my wings, so to speak.
However, when Nissan said they were making a new GTR, I expected them to honor the concept of which the previous GTRs were based on, but they didn't. 

Not only did they not build a proper new GTR, but they also openly admitted that the only reason why they called it a GTR was so they could use this cult icon name for marketing.
And yes, I know they removed the Skyline part of the name because they knew this car was a completely new thing, but they still only did half a good job with that. What they should have done, was to give the car a proper new name, marking the beginning of a new era... 

I'm not against change at all when done properly, and Nissan did at least try. And I'm sure it kicks the living dayligt out of the Porsche, I'm sure it'll make the other drivers in the JGTC piss their pants, but it never truly makes sense with the title GTR.

If I were to buy one, I would've removed every single GTR bagde and logo on it. Only then would the car truly shine.


----------



## r34mspec (May 30, 2007)

you are qutie possably the biggest knob i have ever come across on any forum,thats like saying a new ferrari is not a proper ferrari because it hasnt goy pop up lights?????????Mods troll this guy out of here!


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

ru' said:


> I'm fine with MeltDown "not recognising" the GTR; that's a bit odd but okay. We're all entitled to our opinions (I voted 'troll' earlier; that was my opinion and maybe others wouldn't agree).
> 
> However, it's the references to 'French' etc., and that somehow the people who own/drive a car somehow change what the car is, that puzzle me.


Why does that puzzle you? It's only natural that a management in charge of developing a product put some of their own tweeks into it by making descissions that in one way or the other alters the design and/or the engineering of the product.



bonzelite said:


> The GT-R is not a French-inspired design. None of the design process involved how they could French the car up.
> 
> If you can find a Renault sourced piece of information that cites a hand in the actual design process for the GT-R, I will stand corrected.


The GTR might not have been inspired or affected directly, but through it most certainly has got some indirect traces of the Renault-Nissan alliance.
Any documentation of which is unlikely to excist, partly becuase Ghosn knew that if he officially changed the GTRs design to be more French, it would spell disaster, but also because these things might happen unintentionally.


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

I'd still want one if it was called the Nissan Poo, lol.


----------



## r34mspec (May 30, 2007)

you are qutie possably the biggest knob i have ever come across on any forum,thats like saying a new ferrari is not a proper ferrari because it hasnt got pop up lights?????????Mods troll this guy out of here!


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> Read it again, and slowly this time... The 2008/09 Nissan GTR is a great car as a car.
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with it (mostly) other than its name. When going through the trouble of making a car, a GTR, then they should do just that, but they have not. Instead they chose to build a completely new car from scratch. There's nothing wrong with that. Not at all. If only they had given it a suitable name, I would've taken it under my wings, so to speak.


The R32 GT-R is not a GT-R as stated. It's a completely new car from scratch apart from the KPGC110. 

The R33 GT-R is not a GT-R as stated. You need to read that again..... and slowly. 

The R34 GT-R is not a GT-R as stated. Read that slowly. None of these GT-Rs have any mechanical or design similarities to the KPGC10 and 110. 

The R32, 33, 34 GT-Rs make no sense with the title of GT-R as they do not harken to the orginal KPGC10 and 110.





> If I were to buy one, I would've removed every single GTR bagde and logo on it. Only then would the car truly shine.


Then all GT-R badges on every GT-R except for the KPGC10 should be removed, too, as the subsequent iterations of the GT-R are invalidated, per your own measure of thinking. 

Please read this again carefully and slowly.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

r34mspec said:


> you are qutie possably the biggest knob i have ever come across on any forum,thats like saying a new ferrari is not a proper ferrari because it hasnt goy pop up lights?????????Mods troll this guy out of here!


It's not about the looks, nor the mechanics...


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

MeltDown said:


> Instead they chose to build a completely new car from scratch. There's nothing wrong with that. Not at all. If only they had given it a suitable name, I would've taken it under my wings, so to speak.
> However, when Nissan said they were making a new GTR, I expected them to honor the concept of which the previous GTRs were based on, but they didn't.
> .


Right

EXPLAIN the concept behind the previous GTR's and the new R35 and how they differ?

when they made the R32 GTR they put the latest technology on it with the sole point of destroying the competition on the track.

well the market HAS changed, wether YOU like it of not, and now the competition is on the Road, in the form of the 911 etc, and so they designed a car , from scratch, to destroy this competition.

how does that differ? because it doesn't use a 20 year old chassis? because it's lardy, becasue it's ugly? hey it the same ****ing thing, just form a different persepctive!

drive one, hate it, great, but if the people who designed the previous GTR's say its a GTR, your opinion stands for shit

mook


----------



## r34mspec (May 30, 2007)

boys stop giving this junkie what he wants and close this pointless thread.he wishes he could have one thats all!now close this thread.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> The GTR might not have been inspired or affected directly, but through it most certainly has got some indirect traces of the Renault-Nissan alliance.
> Any documentation of which is unlikely to excist, partly becuase Ghosn knew that if he officially changed the GTRs design to be more French, it would spell disaster, but also because these things might happen unintentionally.


So now you're moving the goal posts as a countermeasure.

Ghosn didn't design nor make the GT-R into anything personally mechanically nor aesthetically. He is not a designer. He guided the company from near-ruin to profit margins that have exceeded expectations. The design team is not French nor bears their influence. 

The idea behind the GT-R in concept is to offer a high performance GT car in an economical package, often exceeding the performance of sport exotics. This has been the modus operandi then, today, and tomorrow. 

This is clearly carried to it's highest yet level.


Your personal preference to prior GT-Rs has nothing to do with the validity of the GT-R name being carried forth. 


Were I moderator on this forum, I would move to lock this thread as it provides little useful argument in any further direction, as you are yanking around the forum seemingly for the mere enjoyment of upsetting GT-R fans as you even stated yourself. You "enjoy pissing everyone off."

That = TROLL

There is no useful end to this kind of endeavor.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

I don't recongnize the R35 as a GTR. I don't believe it's worthy that title.

If you can't understand my reasoning, then don't ask....


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

MeltDown said:


> I don't recongnize the R35 as a GTR. I don't believe it's worthy that title.
> 
> If you can't understand my reasoning, then don't ask....


you've not answered my question. how do the concepts between the 
R32,33,34,and 35 differ?

mook


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> I don't recongnize the R35 as a GTR. I don't believe it's worthy that title.
> 
> If you can't understand my reasoning, then don't ask....


You have gone about your reasoning with free abandon and with great volume. I think everyone understands it. It's not difficult to understand your position even if it is erroneous. 

Now please address the questions posed before you as stated. 

The "if you have to..... then don't ask..." is a duck-and-hide/bait-and-switch tactic that is very transparent. You've already used that one. 

You are only weakening your position further by such repeated retorts.


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

R32/3/4 are all very similar. Underpriced, over engineered and cheap to tune.

R35 it hightly strung out the box. Scratch a bore and you need a new block, non reliably tunable like the cast iron blocked RB26. Hughly complicated gearbox.

The older (R32-4) skyline GT-Rs very basic sport coupes. DIY tunable and affordable, unlike the R35.

The R35 is good, but it's not for most of us, and probably never will be.

The classic GT-R is dead, along with the MINI.

Call the replacement what you like, but when a classics gone, nothing will fill the void....


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

R32 Combat said:


> R32/3/4 are all very similar. Underpriced, over engineered and cheap to tune.
> 
> R35 it hightly strung out the box. Scratch a bore and you need a new block, non reliably tunable like the cast iron blocked RB26. Hughly complicated gearbox.
> 
> ...


Granted, body styles and designs of engineering will change with the times. The Cadillac of the 1930s is not the Cadillac of the 2000s.

And now tell how that invalidates the GT-R from carrying the name forth since the KPGC10 which differs in every way mechanically from the BNR32.


----------



## Northern Monkey (Sep 20, 2004)

So what you are saying is Im going to go from driving a datsun to driving a renault.. Oh no shoot me now!!!

Really I couldnt give 2 flying shits.. I love my car. The new one excites me. When I eventually drive one ill have a wet patch and I wouldnt care about anything you have said. Because thats my opinion and your not clever enough to have one!


----------



## Fuggles (Jul 3, 2001)

Whilst it's good to have different views and opinions it's not always possible to change peoples' minds and we shoud respect the opinions of others. So, having reached this state in the debate would it not now be sensible to agree to disagree and close the discussion?


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

Yes, the new Nissan GT-R is good, but its not a cult car, its not a classic. 

Sure, you can call anything a GT-R, from a 70's skyline to a ford fiesta. The badge means nothing anymore. It's been diluted over the years.

For me, the new GT-R it a technical marvel, like only the Japanese can do, but will it grab the motorsport work by storm and write history like the BNR32 did. I think not...


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

R32 Combat said:


> Yes, the new Nissan GT-R is good, but its not a cult car, its not a classic.


It's a new car. It cannot be a classic yet. 



> Sure, you can call anything a GT-R, from a 70's skyline to a ford fiesta. The badge means nothing anymore. It's been diluted over the years.


How so? Use specific examples of such dilution.



> For me, the new GT-R it a technical marvel, like only the Japanese can do, but will it grab the motorsport work by storm and write history like the BNR32 did. I think not...


It already has begun doing this. The press has been overwhelmingly positive even under the closest scrutiny. It will more than likely only escalate under it's own momentum. The GT-R has created it's own niche as the car is currently unclassifiable.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Mookistar said:


> you've not answered my question. how do the concepts between the
> R32,33,34,and 35 differ?
> 
> mook


The c10 was released as a family saloon in '68, and in the following year the GTR version (pgc10 /kpgc10 cupe) was launched as Nissan took on the GTC, sort of making it a road legal race car. 
It didn't change much with the kpgc110 GTR
Then they descided to change all that and halted the production of the GTR along with the c110.
Nissan continued to race the following skylines, but didn't make GTR versions of the car, until the R32 came along, which also became a sort of road legal racecar. And since the R32, 33 and 34 isn't really that different, they're the same. 
That's what the GTR was all about. An affordable, slightly downscaled racecar that you could take for a spin without getting arrested.
Up until this point, the GTR's kind of a familycar on steroids.

The R35 on the other hand is, according to Nissan themselves, "a supercar designed from the ground up". Or in other words not sticking with the GTR tradition.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

Fuggles said:


> Whilst it's good to have different views and opinions it's not always possible to change peoples' minds and we shoud respect the opinions of others. So, having reached this state in the debate would it not now be sensible to agree to disagree and close the discussion?


Agreed
Btw this was a provokative thread to begin with, because of that pic I found, but from post 4 on page 3 all of my replies has been genuin.


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

Ford, Renault, Mercedes ultima all use GTR.

I am full aware that a new car cannot be a classic, my point is I don't think it will ever carry status of a RB26 GTR. You will never see stripped out 1400hp R35 GTR's racing 1/4 mile. The alloy block just won't do it.

Unlike the R32 GT-R, the R35 GT-R is nothing like the road car. Big fat wheels arches etc.

My thoughts will remain unchanged, regardless of others views.

LONG LIVE THE RB26 POWER GT-R


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

R32 Combat said:


> Ford, Renault, Mercedes ultima all use GTR.
> 
> I am full aware that a new car cannot be a classic, my point is I don't think it will ever carry status of a RB26 GTR. You will never see stripped out 1400hp R35 GTR's racing 1/4 mile. The alloy block just won't do it.
> 
> ...


+1 :thumbsup:


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

R32 Combat said:


> Ford, Renault, Mercedes ultima all use GTR.
> 
> I am full aware that a new car cannot be a classic, my point is I don't think it will ever carry status of a RB26 GTR. You will never see stripped out 1400hp R35 GTR's racing 1/4 mile. The alloy block just won't do it.
> 
> ...


If you simply prefer the older GT-Rs, many people hold this view. It's not very profound nor unusual. 

Likewise, the GT-R iteration we see today is a progression of this ethos regardless of your personal tastes. 

Many people coming into the new GT-R will deem the car their favorite and sought-after icon. The trend and pattern will continue from generation to generation. 

The only fault or area that I would personally like to see is a true 3-pedal manual shift, even if it is a sequential unit. 

Other than that, the R35 is light years beyond the RB-series cars. 

Insofar as design, I see the merits of all the GT-R variants since it's inception in the late 1960s. I have an R32 GT-R but do not berate nor dislike the R35's appearance. It's the latest version, simply put.


----------



## stealth (Jul 6, 2004)

I dont think Smeltdown is getting it ,I think he likes the older 3 models 32, 33,34 ,and the 33 & 34 were differant body shapes but pretty much the same engine and technology.So I think he wishes the r35 was based on 20 year old technology .Thats the way I read it anyway .Jesus if the world moved on acording to smeltdown I think we would still be chucking spears ,wearing fur skins and saying "ug ug"


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

stealth said:


> I dont think Smeltdown is getting it ,I think he likes the older 3 models 32, 33,34 ,and the 33 & 34 were differant body shapes but pretty much the same engine and technology.So I think he wishes the r35 was based on 20 year old technology .Thats the way I read it anyway .Jesus if the world moved on acording to smeltdown I think we would still be chucking spears ,wearing fur skins and saying "ug ug"


Ya right








But don't get me too wrong. I'm not in any way against technological improvements. I just don't approve of the R35 being a GTR, that's all. If its name was GT-Z or 350GT or 3500Z etc and was in no way asscosiated with the old GTR's, it would be a completely different matter all together.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> Ya right
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The BNR32 is not associated mechanically or shapewise to the KPGC10. The BNR32 is not a GT-R, too. You must be balanced in your assessment to include all GT-Rs not adhering to the first models in subsequent iterations. 

The R32, 33, 34 GT-Rs should not bear the GT-R badges either. You must include this in your rationale otherwise you are upholding a double-standard.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

i have the same feeling with games such as rainbow six. tom clancy rainbow six was a cult classic, a game of its time, it was awesome! then ubisoft a french compainy took it over and used the cult classic name for its fame of future titles. it bought the tom clancy name and ruined a good game because of the problems they created with the game. so i totaly understand where this guy is comming from. i would go into more detail but im spent on that issue.

in any way... im not going to really say i agree with him on this issue because of my knowledge on the gt.r


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

i think if Meltdown had articulated his argument as clearly and concisely as 
R32 combat did, this thread would be 2 pages long at the most.

Totally agree what your saying Andy, and in that respect, its NOT a proper GTR as we know it.... but it is definetly worthy of the GTR badge

All IMHO of course

Mook


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

bonzelite said:


> The BNR32 is not associated mechanically or shapewise to the KPGC10. The BNR32 is not a GT-R, too. You must be balanced in your assessment to include all GT-Rs not adhering to the first models in subsequent iterations.
> 
> The R32, 33, 34 GT-Rs should not bear the GT-R badges either. You must include this in your rationale otherwise you are upholding a double-standard.


Of course there are differances between the hakosuka GTR's and the R32-34's, but the idea of which they all were bulid on, which I in my previous post mentions as the concept behind a true GTR, is that they all are family cars turned to affordable, easily tuned, road legal racecars.

And btw, the pgc10/kpgc10's got one common mechanical thing with the R32, straight-six's.... not the same model ofc but still.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> Of course there are differances between the hakosuka GTR's and the R32-34's, but the idea of which they all were bulid on, which I in my previous post mentions as the concept behind a true GTR, is that they all are family cars turned to affordable, easily tuned, road legal racecars.
> 
> And btw, the pgc10/kpgc10's got one common mechanical thing with the R32, straight-six's.... not the same model ofc but still.


Then your dislike for V6s in GT-Rs, and your hankering for a family saloon derivative is the crux of your issue even when Nissan since the R33 GT-R has conceptualized a separate car apart from Skyline? 

Nissan has endeavored to cleave GT-R from Skyline for years, almost 2 decades. Hasegawa began talking seriously about it during the mid 1990s during the LeMans involvement. 

And that is antithetical to GT-R ethos?


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

bonzelite said:


> Then your dislike for V6s in GT-Rs, and your hankering for a family saloon derivative is the crux of your issue even when Nissan since the R33 GT-R has conceptualized a separate car apart from Skyline?
> 
> Nissan has endeavored to cleave GT-R from Skyline for years, almost 2 decades. Hasegawa began talking seriously about it during the mid 1990s during the LeMans involvement.
> 
> And that is antithetical to GT-R ethos?


That's true, but they didn't meterialise such a concept untill rescently, suggesting the posibility of some previous disagreement within Nissan itself. Maybe Ghosn had something to do with the realisation of this, I don't know, but it would appare they accomplished what they wanted in the end. 

And yes it is antithetical to a certain degree, but as creators should be, Nissan always seemed healthily self-critical towards their own creations. It's a good thing ofc when trying to maintain a competable automotive brand, but in the in the case of the R35, I think they went too far.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> That's true, but they didn't meterialise such a concept untill rescently, suggesting the posibility of some previous disagreement within Nissan itself. Maybe Ghosn had something to do with the realisation of this, I don't know, but it would appare they accomplished what they wanted in the end.
> 
> And yes it is antithetical to a certain degree, but as creators should be, Nissan always seemed healthily self-critical towards their own creations. It's a good thing ofc when trying to maintain a competable automotive brand, but in the in the case of the R35, I think they went too far.


It didn't materialize until recently more than likely due to platform retooling issues. There was already a momentum and structure to the RB-powered chassis that included the Skyline model range. 

In other words, it had to run it's course as the Skyline model was not yet due for a total reworking from top to bottom. 

Now we have the V-series chassis that the 350Z and Skylines are now based upon (as well as other models). This preceded the arrival of the new GT-R as that program was put on hiatus. 

The Skyline changed anyway. The entire paradigm for the car changed with the arrival of a new platform and chassis, and parts-sharing throughout a range of Nissan vehicles. 

What the GT-R "would have been" had you had your Skyline sharing continue would have been a variant of the GT350 Skyline coupe' (G35 coupe' for American viewers out there). 

That is a 2-door coupe' and although based on teh same platform as the G35 sedan, is a fast-back version and not at all sedan-looking.

The Skyline today is more akin to the 350Z --a 2-door sports coupe'. Therefore, you must then invalidate the existence of the 2-door coupe' Skyline version that we see today sharing nearly the exact same profile as the Z car. 

And because the Z cars originally had I-6 L-series engines, all of the subsequent V6s of later models are invalidated and impure, rendering all generations of the Z with the VG30 irrelevant and fake.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

so i get this impression.. you dont like the GT-R badge but would rather refer to the R35 as the 350GT or whatever it is you say, even tho its not based on that model, which is seemingly what you want it to be (you seem to want the car based off the nissan skyline which is called a 350z or G35). 

i know that nissan went from skyline R34 to a skyline G35/350z and ditched the whole idea of the performance godzilla all together... that was a cost decission to make nissan back on track, it took a deep fall in cash and had to do what it could to get out and stay affloat. that ment ditching the GT-R r34 and whatever came next. hence the 350z and g35 called skyline.

since the 350z and g35 couldnt hold on to the performance competition between porschs etc... when nissan got out of the slump and started making some cash, they needed to create something new and show that nissan still is all about performance like they once were.

so the GT-R R35 is closer to what the skyline R34 was, but better, very differnt tho! after the R32 nissan never created a skyline that was MUCH better stock wise. of course they are awesome cars and great performers and even greater potential cost performance ratio wise when doing aftermarket... they were never as great a performance as the lighter weight R32 (tho the R32 chassis isnt as ridged as the later iterations). 

anyways, you get the point. nissan has money to spend, they want to create the GT-R to what its suppose to be, a performer... nothing more.. the R33 and R34 were not based on other sedans like you say... i asked before and so did others... you had no answer. 

it would be nice if the GT-R was closer in spec to the original R34 but you still have a pipe dream like i said, cause you cant buy a Z-Tune and sticking a VR38 in a 350Z wouldnt be such a good idea (tho not a bad one, just not for normal people in my honest opinion).

so yea, im sad we didnt get a new skyline that represented something to superseed the R34 that we can make a skyline R35 out of... but ... we have the R35 GT-R which already fills the void in every single way, a performance icon that superseeds the R34, of which was nissans race car... i dont see why you think otherwise.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

ok, i also see your point about the GTS model of R33/r32 etc...
as noted here:
Nissan Skyline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but i dont see why the GT-R needs a GTS or anything other than that. nissan is here to make money and already has a car for each nitch market. they cant offer other variants of this car.. it has no equel and shares no parts (very very little) with any other car in the lineup, nissan decided to make that descession. im guessing because the 350z and G37 take over where any other variant might go. 

nissan also hinted to make a 370z and another silvia. those should fill some small gaps, but i know, it wont replace a GTS or variants of the skyline. the GT-R R35 plays a position in nissans car lineup and its filled most all its other voids. sorry things are not differnt like they were before.


----------



## Howsie (Feb 25, 2002)

MeltDown said:


> Ya right
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK. Please list, line by line what you think the key characteristic are of the old GT-R


----------



## stealth (Jul 6, 2004)

Well if the GTR 35 is not a GTR ,then a Jaguar is not a Jag anymore ,Is not a mini a Mini any more, by a long way? .At Least it's still Nissan Building the 35 .


----------



## Grex (Jan 2, 2005)

Surely, at the end of the day whether its called a GTR, GT, GTX, GR, XYZ... no one can deny that its one hell of a car, I think its about time they moved on from the RB26 cars, which although are all brilliant its time to do something different, rather than keep dragging the series on like Xfiles.


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

Rb series GTR basic characteristics would be,

1) Highly capable Rb series engines, designed with tuning in mind.
2) ATTESA 4WD with RWD tendancies.
3) Twin turbo setup.
4) Bullet proof gearboxes and drive train.
5) Basic ergonomic interior design.
6) Functional dashboard.
7) The whole car has a very Grand tourer feel about it.
8) To drive a GTR puts you as close to the road without actually touching it as possable.
9) High performance brakes without the use of exotic materials.

Parallels can be draws between the new GTR and the NEW mini cooper.

There is the old one , which is a global icon. Then, in an attempt carry on the 'name', a new model comes out. 

There is nothing wrong with it, technology move on, but some things should be allowed to die...

Like the Mini, Beetle, Fiat 500, GTR.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

mindlessoath said:


> ok, i also see your point about the GTS model of R33/r32 etc...
> as noted here:
> Nissan Skyline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Again... I have no porblems at all with Nissan making a car such as the R35. As you say, they need to aquire something new to satisfy todays market. 
However, they laid the Skyine GTR to rest in 2002, and as _R32 Combat_ put it: it should be allowed to die, and not resurected in a completely different form.
I don't know all that much about the chassies and whatnot, but I never meant to say that the R35's based on the 350z or G35. What I tried to say though, was that it probably belongs more in the Z-group than in the GTR-group, since the Z car's allways been sportcars to begin with.
The best thing though would've been that Nissan gave the R35 a completely new name and class, creating a new era of future legendary cars, instead of messing with the old.


----------



## CJGTR (Jul 10, 2007)

MeltDown said:


> I don't know all that much.


!!!!!


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

ok so in 9 pages you finaly describe what it is your trying to say? wtf man. if your going to argue something please do so in the first post or at least sooner.

in any regards... Your opinion is taken, but, it still doesnt make any sense at all to me any others. this is the R35 that supersuccedes the R34. there is no doubt about that, and i find your opinion to be unsubstantiated.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

mindlessoath said:


> ok so in 9 pages you finaly describe what it is your trying to say? wtf man. if your going to argue something please do so in the first post or at least sooner.
> 
> in any regards... Your opinion is taken, but, it still doesnt make any sense at all to me any others. this is the R35 that supersuccedes the R34. there is no doubt about that, and i find your opinion to be unsubstantiated.


:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> Again... I have no porblems at all with Nissan making a car such as the R35. As you say, they need to aquire something new to satisfy todays market.
> However, they laid the Skyine GTR to rest in 2002, and as _R32 Combat_ put it: it should be allowed to die, and not resurected in a completely different form.
> I don't know all that much about the chassies and whatnot, but I never meant to say that the R35's based on the 350z or G35. What I tried to say though, was that it probably belongs more in the Z-group than in the GTR-group, since the Z car's allways been sportcars to begin with.
> The best thing though would've been that Nissan gave the R35 a completely new name and class, creating a new era of future legendary cars, instead of messing with the old.


No. You need to accept your established premise fully for your position to be credible. Otherwise you are simply bemoaning personally how you don't like the new direction for the GT-R, and are carrying forth a pseudo-intellectual argument.

The GT-R was laid to rest in 1972 when Nissan discontinued the KPGC10 and changed to the KPGC110. Therefore, you're way off about the R32 GT-R. That is a completely new direction for the GT-R and is undeserving of the badge. The R33 and R34 are likewise undeserving as they are not the in the direction of the KPGC10.


Your premise mandates that every time a car maker changes platforms and chassis, the car that replaces the former model, but retains the name, is not the car anymore. You have left out every other marque and model except for Nissan's GT-R in this case. 

The new Ford Mustang is not deserving of the badge, nor are any Corvettes that have replaced the 1950s Corvettes. 

The F430 is not a Ferrari because it has replaced the 1963 250 GTE, and myriad others, and no longer uses that platform or engine. 


This can go on indefinitely and reveals the real underpinnings of your modus. Whilst there are some who would probably agree with you, most would not once the premise is actually examined. 

But this is the grandest contradiction:

"Again... I have no porblems at all with Nissan making a car such as the R35."

when.... evidently... you _do have a problem_ with the R35. 



It is perfectly ok to dislike a new model of car. Lots of die hard "RB26" fans will never accept anything but the RB26-platformed GT-Rs. You're not the first nor the last to fit this (rigid) category.

But to then attempt to back it up with faux-technical/pseudo intellectual claptrap is akin to trolling and arguing for the sake of it.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> I don't know all that much about the chassies and whatnot, but I never meant to say that the R35's based on the 350z or G35. What I tried to say though, was that it probably belongs more in the Z-group than in the GTR-group, since the Z car's allways been sportcars to begin with.


The Skylines are now "part of the z group" as they share the same engine and platform.




> The best thing though would've been that Nissan gave the R35 a completely new name and class, creating a new era of future legendary cars, instead of messing with the old.


The same platform and chassis cannot be carried indefinitely. The Skyline GT350 today, the coupe', is a coupe' similar to the Z. You must then invalidate ALL NEW Skylines, too, as well as the GT-R, for your argument to be credible. 

You overlook and fail to read prior posts which have stated this very thing, which either reveals a failure to understand the ramifications of what you are actually saying, or a denial that your premise is pseudo-intellectual and half-baked. 

Either way the position you have taken is an elaborate attempt to disguise trolling behavior and nothing much more than that. You could have said "I don't much like the R35" in one or two posts.


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

I like the R35 GTR as a materialistic object, but the name totally sucks.....


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

bonzelite said:


> The GT-R was laid to rest in 1972 when Nissan discontinued the KPGC10 and changed to the KPGC110. Therefore, you're way off about the R32 GT-R. That is a completely new direction for the GT-R and is undeserving of the badge.


The concept of the GTR being a normal, family(ish) Skyline turned into an affordable, easily tuned, road going racecar, was preserved. Which is what I define as a GTR.


bonzelite said:


> But this is the grandest contradiction:
> 
> "Again... I have no porblems at all with Nissan making a car such as the R35."
> 
> when.... evidently... you do have a problem with the R35.


Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say here.
Yes, I have a problem with the naming of the R35, and what Nissan's trying to accomplish by giving it that name.
However by "I have no porblems at all with Nissan making a car such as the R35.", I meant I don't have a problem with the pure mechanics, looks and reasoning as to why as to why Nissan needed this new 'flahship' in the first place.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

the engines are not the same as the Z engine. same V6 config, but other than that they are differnt in every way other than cylinder size.

the chassis i belive are simular, cant argue there, but alot has changed irc.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

bonzelite said:


> The same platform and chassis cannot be carried indefinitely.


Which is what was meant by "it should be allowed to die", implying that aslo the name should die with it.

As far as the new Skylines are conserned, that name should've died with the R34 also, but having said that, I can partually accept the reasoning as to why the V35 and V36 has been named Skyline, since the Skyline's always been slight luxurious family(ish) cars.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> Which is what was meant by "it should be allowed to die", implying that aslo the name should die with it.
> 
> As far as the new Skylines are conserned, that name should've died with the R34 also, but having said that, I can partually accept the reasoning as to why the V35 and V36 has been named Skyline, since the Skyline's always been slight luxurious family(ish) cars.


You don't like to listen.

Your premise mandates that every time a car maker changes platforms and chassis, the car that replaces the former model, but retains the name, is not the car anymore. You have left out every other marque and model except for Nissan's GT-R in this case.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

ok, this is even more of a diss to you.

your refering to the Skyline turned into a gran turismo racer and called GT-R, ie skyline GT-R.

now since the R35 is NOT based on the Skyline, they decided to call it JUST GT-R because its a Gran Turismo Racer, hence what it stands for. and your NOT happy about that?

i dont get it... they justified that for me. ditch the skyline name because its not based on the skyline anymore... but its still a GT-R because of what GT-R stands for.

and your still not happy.


----------



## MeltDown (Mar 28, 2007)

bonzelite said:


> You don't like to listen.


And you either can't, or don't want to, understand what I'm on about.


bonzelite said:


> Your premise mandates that every time a car maker changes platforms and chassis, the car that replaces the former model, but retains the name, is not the car anymore.


That's because it is not the car anymore after being made into a completely new thing, not just concerning the platform, chassis and engine, but also the foundations of which the previous modles were build on. 


bonzelite said:


> You have left out every other marque and model except for Nissan's GT-R in this case.


This souly concerns the GTR because it's unique. No other marque, model or brand has ever been as special.
Imho, the Skyline GTR's are the only cars ever to possess a soul, a rarity, a power and a carisma. All other cars are rendered as dead in comparison.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

MeltDown said:


> And you either can't, or don't want to, understand what I'm on about.


It is not any such case. I know exactly what you're "on about" as I have dissected it like a frog. Your position is not very difficult to see or refute as it is one of the most slippery-sloped arguments I've seen in quite a while. 



> That's because it is not the car anymore after being made into a completely new thing, not just concerning the platform, chassis and engine, but also the foundations of which the previous modles were build on.


Then again, as you don't listen nor read, you must include nearly EVERY car built since it was a new nameplate. This means EVERY car. If you include that provision, your argument at least remains consistent. 

But you move the goal posts constantly in reaction to new revelations that your argument is laughable and untenable. 



> This souly concerns the GTR because it's unique. No other marque, model or brand has ever been as special.


What?! 

Now you're in the throes of desperation :runaway: 

There are scores of cars that are "just as special" that have undergone similar --if not the same-- changes throughout the history of motor cars. 

Again, your argument is a pseudo-intellectual non-issue. You don't like the R35. And that is as far as your argument holds merit. Otherwise, as has been shown for pages, you are not carrying your premise through to include what it really means.




> Imho, the Skyline GTR's are the only cars ever to possess a soul, a rarity, a power and a carisma. All other cars are rendered as dead in comparison.


Now you're clawing at anything to sustain your failed premise.

"All other cars are rendered as dead in comparison...." 

Do you realize that is entirely laughable and an outrageous claim? All other cars! 

Your argument does not work because you have taken an erroneous and all-inclusive position that cannot in reality be true for any reason. 


In many ways, you can learn from this debate, but I am almost convinced you will not. Were you to gracefully own up to what you have been shown, it would carry more respect. 

But you have shown no such acquiescence or even slight trace of capitulation.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

Round and round in circles, like a teddy bear

this bloody thread is going nowhere


----------

