CDogbert

F' the ZR1 simply because it's made by General Motors. I'll take the Viper ACR, though.


Why? You can kill a little more and have a 997,

CarbonXe

iTrader: (1)

The Viper is said to be barely drivable on the streets lol, however, I would still take it over the GTR. At least the Viper would feel like a real car, and not some video game. I'd take the ZR1 over anything though.



F the Viper simply because it's made by Bankrupt asshats.



*drool*

I will say that the blower window is incredibly tacky and should have never been done.

jamessicat25

seriously who gives a shizzle? if i can afford to buy this car then I will

CDogbert

And the ZR1 isn't? Just because they say bankruptcy isn't an option...

The Viper's never been terribly comfortable... but if I'm buying a car based on it's 'Ring time, who cares about comfort?

Oh yeah, a GT-R was out at Gateway last weekend, but it was either driven by someone who a) didn't want to wreck their GT-R or b) didn't know how to push their GT-R.

(Photo courtesy of PhotoMotion)

http://www.photomotiononline.com/ord...ictureId=69122


Also, http://www.photomotiononline.com/ord...ictureId=68253

kungpaosamuraiii

It's all very amusing but I don't see why people are so vested in who says what or lies about that unless they're in the market for such a car.

I mean, even at the price range of a tC you still get people buying on preference rather than statistics and specs. It's the same ish when you're looking at 50k cars and 100k cars and 200k cars etc.

Anyway


why is the GT-R a disgrace?

scionBoy86

ok first of all bugatti veyron is a PRODUCTION CAR.. and your SS aero tt ____ isn't?
second vw has claimed the veyron can reach close to 270mph on top of all that the veyron has a FULL luxurious interior and the Aero TT does not sssoooooooooo if cheaper part and light part are applied the car would obvisiouly would weight less duh

CDogbert

Also, only about 100 more Veyron's exist than Ultimate Aero TT's.

Well, Shelby says the 2008 Ultimate can reach 284mph. Also, while it's $885,000 cheaper than the Veyron, you could hardly say it's made with "cheap" parts. I'd still have a Veyron if I had $1.5 million just lying around, but the UA TT is nothing to scoff at.

CarbonXe

iTrader: (1)

Holy 3 day old thread that got bumped for no reason Batman!

Veyron = Uber fugly, overpriced hunk of crap.
Aero TT = Sexy, cheap hunk of crap.

And hate to break it to ya, the SSC Aero TT IS a production vehicle. If it wasn't a production vehicle, it wouldn't hold the Guinness world record for fastest production car.

Also, just becuase VW 'claims' it can do 270, doesn't mean it can. If you're that gullible, then my tC will do 271 mph and I don't need proof because you'll believe everything you hear.

Wutachampion

scionBoy86

there is so much technology in the veyron its not even funny....when ur in that car u dont feel nothing and hear no wind noise or nothing...its the most incredible car ever built by man...u need aspecial key to engage the full power onces engaged the car automaticly levels down to the earth as close as possible...the interior is simply breathtakinly beautiful inside..its jus UGHHHH beautiful right below a euro fighter jet as far as technology

scionBoy86

say that to the Formula 1 cars and ferrari's and lambos

CarbonXe

iTrader: (1)

So you've been in the car while it has been traveling at over 250mph?

Or do you just listen and believe every word that comes out of Jeremy Clarkson's mouth?

CDogbert

I think that viewpoint has something to do with the computers doing everything, and the driver just having to sit there for the sake of tradition.

I actually think the opposite. The Veyron looks stunning in person, even though I'm not much of a fan of it's center console... and admittedly, I've only seen the Aero TT in pictures, but the interior of an Audi TT looks better, and the front-end just looks really goofy.

And here I thought I watched too much Top Gear.

All Formula 1 cars, every Ferrari besides the California (which is front-engine), and all Lamborghini's are mid-engine cars, not rear-engine like Porsche's. Any person owning any car you just mentioned would think I had no idea what I was talking about if I said the car was rear-engine like a Porsche. Also, they'd wonder why I was talking to their cars.

CarbonXe

iTrader: (1)

Because it NEEDS the computer controlled systems in order to be fast. The car is significantly slower without launch control and in 'race' mode. Then when you turn on the launch control, you've just sent Nissan a nice e-mail with the topic "Void my warranty please?" The car was made so Nissan could have bragging rights. They made this car for numbers, that's it. They designed the car to outperform everything on the 'Ring, and it did for about a month. The the ZR1 came along and ripped it a second _______, then the Viper ACR came along and completely shattered the GTRs record.

All that technology and it can't even beat a ____ty little Shelby? HA!

AlanW

Sucking Jeremy Clarkson's ***** much? By the way, you need to accept my offer for the bet. $500 that Porsche doesn't make a car better than the GT-R and for $50,000 by December.


I agree with the fact that the Ultimate Aero TT looks like shyte. But the fact of the matter is, it's a production car that they can make per request for costumers and holds the fastest time in a PRODUCTION car. Looks like sh*t but can really go in a straight line. I wouldn't say it's a cheap hunk of crap though. It sure looks like it but the engineering is phenomenal.

The GT-R, yes, all made for bragging rights. If I were to get another car in the $80,000 range though, I'd have trouble finding one. But like Carbon said, $20,000 more and I'd get two cars that would rape the GT-R. I feel that there was too much hype around the GT-R. It's a great car, but there's too much hype around it and not enough around the ZR-1 (I'll take the Viper ACR out of the question because it's not exactly a daily driver if you REALLY wanted to drive it around town.)

All in all though, if I were to spend over $100,000 on a nice car, I'd save up another $50,000 and get a V8 Vantage. It's a lot more flashy, better looking, and I don't need to be getting to 60 in under 4 seconds. Basically what I'm trying to say is:

1) It's all preference, but facts are facts: the Veyron is an overpriced car that IS great, but a car half the price beat what it was SUPPOSED to be good at, hitting the fastest top speed for a production car.
2) The GT-R > GT3 RS for value. I don't care if you say it goes faster because at this point, no one really knows. But for $25,000 cheaper, Nissan really has the value class under their belt. I'd much rather get a car that's $25,000 cheaper and is able to keep up with a GT3 RS.

kungpaosamuraiii

I agree. The GT-R isn't much of a driver's car so much as a driver interface to navigate a road. All the electronics are taking the "sport" out of sports car.

That's why I like the Corvette series (at least the recent ones.) They're good deals for the performance but most of all, they're still running on some old ___ technologies (push rods and leaf springs???) and still kicking ___.

highvoltage1

iTrader: (11)

Viper ACR hands down. I love that growl. That car is sex on wheels.

FLINTstone

LOL good luck driving this thing. if you arent a skilled track driver that car will eat you alive.

1tc4u2nv

here it is, 1st hand look at GTRs at the track, no youtube or magazine racing here. Left car ran 12.2 @116mph, right car ran 12.4 @ 116mph.

CarbonXe

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for proof that the GTR is slow in a straight line. A Z06 can run 10's in the 1/4 mile.
http://www.corvetteblog.com/archives...d-14-mile.html

Let's not forget that the Z06 costs less than a GTR in the real world and is capable of 30+ mpg.

And how is a photobucket video any different from a youtube video?