Talk:Nissan GT-R/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

VR38 engine

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/13/gt-r-speculation-more-tech-details-emerge/ new engine details emerge Looks like it wil be a new series of engine, VR at 3.8 liters—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.151.82.48 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 August 2007.

We won't know for sure until Nissan officially releases the info. Still, this looks more likely than the VQ37HRTT (and others) that everyone was guessing.~ Dusk Knight 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

according to Auto Motor nissan GTR Haze 550 PS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.166.23 (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tokyo Motor Show is in just a few weeks, so we'll have solid info soon enough.~ Dusk Knight 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I hope somebody from Japan/Tokyo can go to the Motor Show this week and take some free photos of the production version.Rps 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that it's been unveiled...

Now that the nissan gtr has been unveiled at the 2007 tokyo motor show, and nissan is pretty openly releasing information regarding the car, when should the article be changed from being full of speculative information and pre-release information, and instead be an article about the actual car as it is? Currently the article is full of "early reports" and "testing" information, which seems redundant and out of date now that there are solid facts about the car.

For example, is it important to note that initially people thought it'd be an infiniti an north america whereas now it is known to be a nissan; or should we simply state that it is a nissan in north america without drawing reference to the early suspicion that it may be an infiniti? I'm tempted to "be bold" and start hacking it up, but i dont want to remove speculative information that people consider to be important. After all, the car has yet to be released. Hugzz 07:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw heck, i decided to be way bold and I removed the whole "early reports" section. feel free to get angry at me and revert it if needed. most of the early reports info is located elsewhere in the article, or is irrelivent now that so much more is known about the GTR. hopefully the few remaining pieces of info will be able to be readded to the article soon, and referenced to a good source such as nissan Hugzz 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So are we ready to start treating it like a real car yet, or should it still be treated as a future car? Back when little was known about the GTR this article was quite useful because it contained all known facts about the car while also outlining the most commonly held suspicions by the motoring world (whilst maintaining NPOV). Personally I dont think this applies too much anymore.

If no one opposes it, I think i'll restructure the article. Currently it's split into the various stages of development "gtr concept" "gtr proto" "testing" "production" (followed by a somewhat strange "appearances in video games"). If it's okay with everyone I think i'll reorganise it into "history" (containing information about its roots in the skyline gtr, the gtr concept and proto and information testing) and "performance and specifications" (or something) containing all the known technical information (and any significant speculation, referenced and maintaining NPOV). All opposed say 'nay'? Hugzz 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. With a substantially amount of official information now available, this is a good time for restructuring. Maybe the appearances in video games could be integrated into a "Media coverage" section? The games are one of several ways the car has gotten more media attention than might be considered normal.~ Dusk Knight 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, games are one of the marketing tools used. According to the LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-gtrdebut25oct25,0,415476.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

--Preveen 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay gentlemen, here is a start that i made on it. doesn't look GREAT so far but i think i may put it up tomorrow because the current layout really is unsuitable. there are so many people interested in this new car that i'm sure 100 hands will work to make my new layout far more workable. User:Hugzz/sandboxgtr any thoughts?

- Hugzz 10:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a step in the right direction. Hopefully I'll find some free time in the next few days to help expand the text. In the meantime, I just found some free pictures on flickr so I'll start with that.~ Dusk Knight 02:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Production

In the production section, the power rating is broken. Anyone got the numbers and can fix it? 124.189.228.33 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. Someone put the template in as "Auto Hp" when it has to be "Auto HP". TheKhakinator 09:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Source

http://www.netcarshow.com/nissan/2008-gt-r/

and

http://www.gtrnissan.com/index.en.us.html?Site=nissanusa&Area=Promo?intcmp=GTR_Webcast.Promo.Homepage.Home.P2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay173 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyres used on the 'ring lap

Pistonheads.com that insisted on cut slick corrected the insistence.

Before "We used cut slick tyres". http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=17066

After "Both laps were recorded using original equipment Bridgestone RE070A tyres, in other words with the car containing no secret tweaks or tricks" http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/roadtests/doc.asp?c=47&i=17295

--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been varying claims as to what tyres were used on the ring lap. People have been linking to the following article which has a nissan engineer saying that cut-slicks were used: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=17066

However, this has been contradicted by this article which has the same engineer saying that to go FASTER would require hand cut slicks, which he isn't interested in due to wanting the lap time to be "real world": http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/3620

Also, in this commentary (http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f165732) Jason Kavanagh (who has driven the GT-R) said:

"There's been some confusion over the tires used on the GT-R during its 7:38 lap of the Nurburgring. Various sources have reported that cut slicks were used. This is incorrect, and stems from a language barrier at a press conference during the GT-R's debut at the Tokyo Motor Show.

Senior GT-R development engineering staff on hand at the 'ring trip I attended confirmed that production-specification (including the tread compound) Bridestone RE070 tires were used on the 7:38 lap.

The three pre-production cars Nissan had on hand during the final Nurburgring trip were production-intent configuration. The strongest car of the three (within production variation) was selected to run the lap, with no "hotting up" done to fudge the result."

Due to conflicting reports, all of which being hearsay, I'd rather leave the article saying that the tyres used are unknown. Hopefully in time we'll get some form of a press release or something regarding it. I'll be reverting posts claiming one way or another until someone can provide a definative answer. Hugzz 08:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CJ DUB, I had to revert your previous edit because you made it in the middle of my own comment and didn't sign it, thus it looked as though I was posting the text you wrote. If you want to comment on the tyre issue, please post BELOW my comment and sign your post so that it is clear who is posting what. Please note that I have already acknowledged the article which you posted in that edit, however I have also noted that contradictory evidence exists. At this time I believe that the evidence (via sources) points slightly towards production tyres being used, but your edit to the main article makes it clear that there is a lack of consensus on the topic. That is why I beleive that, until further information surfaces regarding the tyres, the article should simply state that it is unknown what was used; rather than stating one thing or the other (or leaving it blank which would suggest via omission that production tyres were used). Hugzz 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Riiight, all I did was correct the incorrect link you did and post the principal content of the link. Anyway, this whole thing is a fiasco. Until Sport Auto does a test under their conditions with a dealer bought car these numbers are NOT relevant to compared to the other cars on the list anyway. CJ DUB 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) WORKING LINK: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&t=455380 HONED AT THE 'RING GTR chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno told PistonHeads that his baby had covered over 3000 miles at the Nordschleife and avoided other circuits as they were deemed 'too easy'. Nissan's original target was to beat the 911 Turbo at the 'ring but they ended up worrying the Porsche Carrera GT. They didn't beat the GT's 7min 32sec lap time, but got a 7.38 in semi-wet conditions. 'We used cut slick tyres' said Mizuno. I was not interested in full slick times as this bears no resemblance to a road tyre. 1.2G of force was being pulled in wet and over 2 in dry.

Confirmation in English?

Being that this is the english wikipedia, the two references provided to confirm the tyres used are not too useful unfortunately. Being that it is a reasonably hotly debated issue it would be particularly good if anyone was able to provide a source or two in english that everyone can examine for themselves to determine whether or not they beleive that the production tyres were used.

ALthough foreign language references are allowed on the english wikipedia, they're not encouraged where an english language alternative is available. If a good source is found then we can reword that section to remove doubt. Hugzz 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The usefulness of the source is questionable if the majority of readers can't understand it. I restored the previous statement about there being confusion about the type of tires used. I also added a statement about the Japanese sources (so they are still there) but that can be removed once some good English sources surface.~ Dusk Knight 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the only one who's still seriously unhappy with the english language references? two have been provided but they consist of:

1) an old reference which has been around since the beginning of the "controversy" which has failed to provide a definitive answer, because it directly contradicts another quote that came out at the same time; and

2) a blog quoting the article mentioned in "1" above.

The japanese refs, on the other hand, appear to directly address the question at hand. the poor google translation appears to have a nissan official saying "we know that there is controversy regarding the setup of the car that ran the ring, but i assure you it was completely production spec in every way including tyres".

I dont want this article to be like the forums where one group of fanboys pulls out several poor references saying that the tyres were slicks, and then another group of fanboys pulls out several poor references saying the tyres were production. It'd be much better if, rather than having 4 poor references trying to prove a point, we could just have one definitive reference. the fact that this one issue has 4 references currently attached to it proves that neither one of the links is sufficiently authoritative in its own right to settle the question. Hugzz (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)