Notices
997 GT2/GT3 Forum 2005-2012
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Porsche North Houston

Automobile magazine praises GT2, disses GT-R

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-15-2009 | 12:27 PM
  #31  
flatspin's Avatar
flatspin
Advanced
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Columbia MD
Default

I agree with MOUS. For $70k I'd rather have a low mileage 996 GT3. Lots more personallity and character (I've only driven one once, sigh). I know the GT-R is a technological Tour-De-Force, and can turn in numbers to match the best in the world; but its a heavy, unattractive (IMHO) car that uses lots of technology to make it easy to drive fast. Crap, if you're looking for best bang-for-buck, you can get a Corvette for $45k that performs darn near as well. But how many people here would trade their 911 for a Vette?
Old 02-15-2009 | 06:59 PM
  #32  
///Mous3's Avatar
///Mous3
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, California
Wink

Originally Posted by flatspin
... best bang-for-buck, you can get a Corvette...
I was surprise why C6 Z06 wasn't thrown in the test.

I have seen the GT-R on the road quite a few times (black has been my fav color for that car) and I like the way it looks; pretty meaty and thick. It's a Japanese Vette; raw power. I suspect that without the electronic the car may be too wild for most driver; recalling the 996 GT2.
Old 02-15-2009 | 07:07 PM
  #33  
niche's Avatar
niche
Drifting
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 5
From: Oceanside, CA
Default

Not really into the GTR, but I saw one keep up with a Carrera GT through windy roads... Not that it could be as fast as the CGT, but man did that car grip while going really fast!
Old 02-17-2009 | 11:40 PM
  #34  
USCCayman's Avatar
USCCayman
Intermediate
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Default

It is so true that you get what you pay for. I'm betting that you would see why the Porsches; GT2, 997TT, or 997CS cost more if you were to run any of them against the GTR for a few hours on the 'ring. Making a car that can go fast for a couple of laps is not the same as making a car that can go fast for 24 hours or more.
Old 02-18-2009 | 06:36 PM
  #35  
Kit_Chris's Avatar
Kit_Chris
Racer
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412
Likes: 1
From: Montreal, Canada
Default

Originally Posted by USCCayman
It is so true that you get what you pay for. I'm betting that you would see why the Porsches; GT2, 997TT, or 997CS cost more if you were to run any of them against the GTR for a few hours on the 'ring. Making a car that can go fast for a couple of laps is not the same as making a car that can go fast for 24 hours or more.
You're absolutely correct to state that turning up good numbers is one thing, consistently running well despite the abuse is another, and that's what made Porsche stand out of the crowd. While I would rather bet my money on a Porsche for harsh conditions reliability, something has to be said about the Skyline's long history of successful endurance racing. Of course we wouldn't know about this since the car was sold only in the UK and Japan, but look it up, it's been doing rather well for decades now. Whether the GTR will be true to this legacy remains to be seen.

It's also true that you get what you pay for, but I would nuance this. Porsche is making the highest profit margins per car sold in the car industry. I wouldn't condemn the practice, it's good business and I'm glad they're making money, but the reality is you could get more for your money. Myself and many others on this board hope that the GTR will get Porsche to give a little more for the price. Porsche has enjoyed a market all to itself for years, that can't be good, no matter how faithful to the marque one can be.

Regards,
Chris



Quick Reply: Automobile magazine praises GT2, disses GT-R



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:26 AM.