Yes. If you've driven one, you'll know that the performance is still astonishing and even 12 years after it was introduced, there are few cars that can rival it. The GT-R still has a top ten Nurburgring time for a production car - on undersized RUNFLATS (which weigh 38 lbs for front tires and 40 lbs for rear tires) and steel brakes.

For under $2000, you can have it dialed up to over 700 hp and running in the low-mid 10s. And throw in some sticky tires, brakes, and suspension tuning, and you get a track monster that dominated One Lap of America for 10 years. And if you really want to get crazy, you can get 1000hp-2000hp or more.

So yes, plenty of cars have played catchup and passed it stock for stock...the 911 Turbo, R8 V10, and Ferraris, for example. But with a few adjustments to offset some cost-cutting by Nissan, it's back in that same realm. It is funny, though. In 2008, the car was "too digital." Now, it's "too analog." It's just a defunct Datsun. Just don't race one. ;-)

 

Ha, so true. Dragy's top 50 leaderboard 0-60.

Nissan GT-R holds 22 spots.
No Porsches.
No Ferraris.
No R8s.
No BMWs.
​​No Mercs.
No McLarens.
Booh, a twin-turbo Huracan has snagged spot #50.

Now I can't say there are no rear mid engine cars in the top 50. Hats off to Nissan for being the worlds dominant straight-line auto manufacturer.

Who knew?

While we are giving praise where praise is due, I saw a GT-R documentary on YouTube (long ago forgot the link) where the Nissan GT-R chief designer (forgot his name) was adamant that the secret to performance GTs was more weight to generate HP.

He pointed out that using downforce is a poor substitute for actual weight as it does not work off the line and at slow speeds, at higher speeds it is like trying to shoot a feather through the wind instead of a bullet. Blasphemy.

It seems the only thing the auto community can agree on is the Nissan GT-R is no supercar.
​​​​​​
​​​​​

 

More weight doesn’t translate into faster times through the corners.
If straight-line acceleration is your goal, this is what you want:

 

Definitely. Along those same lines. Here is the #1 car on Dragy. It's a built '69 Yenko Camaro SS.
It has a verified 0-60 time of 0.81 seconds. It does the quarter mile at 186 / 7.14

Here is the #2 car. It could be any 2009 GT-R on the road.
It has a verified 0-60 time of 0.88 seconds. It doesn't have a quarter mile upload that I see.

So the top runs are basically a mix of purpose built Funny Cars and high mileage early MY Nissan GT-Rs that hang with them for God knows why. It's so nuts, it's funny. I still think the F-Type is hands-down the best overall ferociously fast plus high-end luxury GT "super car" ever made and will be for the future we can see.

 

This is exactly how I commute to the office every day. Unfortunately, clearing the snow off it takes time and roundabouts are no-go.

 

I suspect it has room in the forward fuselage for my golf clubs.

 

Be careful how you stow them - you wouldn't want to be impaled when you take off!

 

Agree, even RWD F type R is 1750 - 1770Kg which is rather a lot of weight for a two door couple with aluminium engine and body work

 

Nissan GT-R 2011 had 0 to 60 in 2.7 secs.

Faster than earlier models because it had more power (530PS,) plus the GR6 AWD transaxle has launch control built in that worked really well .

Pretty fast performance for a standard car nine years ago, with as 1/4 in 11.2 if I recall

 

A RWD F-Type V8 is 3677 lbs and 495-550 HP. Both are $1500 away from the same 630 HP, which oddly dynos 16 more WHP than a 650 HP RWD C7 Z06 (same dyno, 559 to 543 WHP) so there is a difference in Jag-Chevy HP rating conservatism.

A RWD Chevy C8 is 3644 lbs and 490-495 HP. Same HP/weight ratio as the C7. GM's new encrypted digital architechture for MY 2020 aims to prevent future tuning.

Not that you can compare a Jaguar to a Chevy cuz you can't.

 

You're right.
Since Chevy is 6th from the top of 2019 Initial Quality Ratings & Jag is dead Last...
https://www.jdpower.com/business/pre...lity-study-iqs

 

Interesting research about JD. Power
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...actly-jd-power

 

You should know, the year my car was made (the prototype for the Ftype) Jaguar was #1 on JDpowers. But keep in mind it was a much more expensive car- costs were cut to get the Ftype more affordable.

On the speed charts...
What if there was another real-world testing metric- one that we could be honest about if we did not live in a politically world.
The speed that it takes to surround a Jag with women and the speed that it takes to have a teen sausage party around a Nissan GTR.
Playboy should make such a speed list- its the number 1 reason we are on the planet.

 

And you have understand that there is absolutely no filter used to separate a complaint caused, say, by an owner's failure to read the owner's manual, thus being unable to properly access the cd he has just attempted (unsuccessfully) to transfer to the hard drive, or an electronic gremlin caused by the fact that the car has only been driven 7 miles in the last month ... and a complete transmission failure...they all figure in the rating process exactly the same way. A Toyota driven every day will have far fewer, probably zero, electronic issues compared to a Jaguar used twice a week (because the latter will have battery charge issues)... Context is everything in the matter of interpretation, whether it is the interpretation of Scripture or of car quality rankings. Not long ago, before Jaguar began a push to introduce several new and complex models, they were at the top of the ratings.
JD Powers has not asked my opinion nor my experience with Jaguars but if they did, I would report that problems in the last 12 months with my F-Type amounted to exactly: ZERO. Problems with my X-Types (2 of them): ZERO. Or would that be unwelcome because it does not support the myth?

 

Duplicate.

 

Great points. But money is everything, not context. Anyone who's worked in corporate BD knows ratings are bought and sold. It's advertising.

 

The reason because I went back to Jaguar ist that my C7 had very bad quality.

Torque Tube new at 9.000km (reason = noise under shift knob - known issue)
Transmission shudder at 18.000km, (reason = bad oil, known issue)

After this issues with permanent fails/shudder/rattle in the drivetrain, I know some blown engines.

So I decided to sell the C7 in warranty time.

Thomas

 

Queen, I agree with u that when I bought my '17 R vert, Jag quality reputation was pretty good.
But I disagree that costs were cut to make the F-type more affordable. Forgot what the sticker for base R coupe back in '17 was, but for '19 it's $100,750 & increased to $101,800 in '20; same for R vert: '19: $103,850 & '20: $104,900.
So it's not getting any cheaper, just that there's no 4 cylinders back in '17, now Jag add them for CAFE fuel economy & affordability in the base pricing in these later years.

 

The F has tremendous depreciation. What that really means is final negotiated sales prices are way below MSRP. You can get a glimpse with common autotrader dealer listings of lingering brand new, well appointed F-Type Rs with asking prices in the high 70s/low 80s.

 

The lowest asking price for brand new R currently on autotrader is $75K with a sticker of $108K. So the 30%+ drive away depreciation of an F is most if not all due to the original sales price.

It's why a $20K Rolex appreciates and a $100K Rolex depreciates. The former sold for $19.5K and latter sold for $65K.
​​​​​