The Nissan GT-R is by all means a bona fide super car and , however for anyone who is too old to have used a Playstation has been left in the dark about the cars that made those three letters so significant over the past two decades. That is because the most contact most people in the U.S. had with a Nissan Skyline GT-R was when playing Gran Turismo, or at an auto extravaganza like SEMA, and there were two fine examples on display this year in the Las Vegas Convetion Center. These were ultra exotic all wheel drive sports cars powered by a revolutionary low displacement high revving twin turbocharged straight six that pushed the Japanese Government’s limits with a reasonably priced package that was able to trump quite a few super cars of its day. Adding to the lore of the old Skyline GT-R; the ones that did make it to America with a DOT approval all came from the same import company, and they were found out to be crooked.

Nissan Skyline GT-Rs at the 2009 SEMA Show
- image 334280

In 1989 the Japanese automaker revived the GT-R nameplate from the 1970s with the R32 Nissan Skyline GT-R. At the time the GT-R was a two door version of Nissan’s popular Skyline luxury sedan, something we were introduced to in America as the Infiniti G35 some years later. Back in the ’90s Nissan had to advertise their budget super car at 280 PS (275 HP) but Godzilla has been dyno’d to reveal closer to 350 HP coming from the RB26DETT under the hood. What was even better is that these car’s could easily be boosted to produce closer to 500 HP and there are even a few recorded 1000 HP runs by tuners who never had to crack the head gasket. In the U.S. the baddest car you could buy and then modify was a Toyota Supra, there are even models that can race against a Suzuki Hyabusa and win at 150 MPH, in Japan they said that when you got over your Supra you bought a GT-R.

Nissan Skyline GT-Rs at the 2009 SEMA Show
- image 335104

This year’s SEMA Show featured two of the latter examples, one white on gold R33, a model that was made from 1995-1998 and got more curves and a bigger turbo. The other jaw dropping piece of high performance machinery was the highly coveted six speed R34, although Nissan ended production of the car in 2001 they came back with a rare proposition for 2004. Celebrating the twentieth anniversary of Nissan Motorsport International, the manufacturer offered to buy back 20 low mileage models which were stripped down and rebuilt to be Z tune GT-Rs. Making 600 PS from a race engine and shod with a set of beautiful black GT500 style Volk racing TE-37s, simply exquisite. Although the late model Rotora car is wearing a different set of wheels, it does have the Z tune style fenders with the vents at the top. It’s tuners cars like these that gave the GT-R its super car credibility; so now you know, and knowing is half the battle.


What do you think?
Show Comments


  (233) posted on 08.11.2010

and the lambo is a heavy overpriced piece of metal that people only buy for the name considering many cars for far less money have more performance ride comfort and usability. sorry but a lambo is overpriced and overhyped

  (233) posted on 08.11.2010

neither the gtr or 911 turbo s has as much power as any of the rwd vehicles you posted on the list aside from the porshce gt2 and its a stripped down race spec version of a porsche without the luxuries not to mention the 911 turbo and gtr have worse power to weight ratios due to the added weight of the awd tranny than any of the cars on the list. not to mention the 911 turbo barely breaks the 100k mark and the gtr is well under it and they both have back seats. i think you just made my point for me

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.24.2010

I added an article containing a spreadsheet on my page with the specifications of the GT-Rs R33 through R35 as well as those of the Supra MKIV TRD and LFA Nurburgring edition. Read that if you want a side-by-side data comparison.

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.20.2010

RWD is the best for track use. Look at the list of the fastest Nurburgring lappers: The Apollo (7:12), LFA (7:13), GT2 RS (7:22), Viper ACR (7:23), Enzo (7:25), ZR1 (7:26), Zonda F (7:27); all are RWD. Then look at the list of the Nurburgring’s fastest AWD cars, most of which have more power than the aforementioned RWD vehicles: GT-R (7:29), 911 turbo S (7:32), Murcielago LP640 (7:40); AWD, while it may provide better wet-road traction, is no match for RWD when it comes to track duty.

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.20.2010

The LFA used in the video was production-spec with the exception of the suspension, which was slighly stiffened for production, after which it ran the undocumented 7:13 lap. The interior in the video is disguised; it is production-specification underneath.

In comparing the Carrera and Evora to the GT-R, they are absolutely comparable because they are all three high performance cars and all cost roughly the same, depending upon options and trim levels. The Carrera and Evora already have more power than you’ll ever need for your commute, and I said I’d take them due to their increased reliability. It doesn’t matter how fast the GT-R is if it isn’t running.

And the LFA is not a 911 turbo competitor; the 911 turbo doesn’t really have a competitor in terms of luxury, quality, or performance in its price range. It is also not a limited edition car like the LFA, nor is it nearly as fast on a racetrack. If you want to compare any Porsche to the LFA, talk about the GT2 RS. As far as cars that can go that fast around a track, the LFA has arguably the nicest interior.

Your argument about the LFA being too expensive to take to the racetrack is stupid; that’s what you would buy that car for. The LFA, as with all expensive, exclusive, exotic supercars, is meant as a collection vehicle/occasional track car. So what, next you’r going to tell me that Ferraris are stupid cars because they, too, are both fast and very expensive? Give me a break.

Uncia  (233) posted on 05.20.2010

that LF-A video is a pre production formula 1 heavily modified car sorry but its not even close to what the production car is. when you have a video of the production car running that time please post it. otherwise quit using the arguement that the LF-A is faster around a track bc i’ve seen no proof at all

Uncia  (233) posted on 05.20.2010

as i said before skid pad and figure 8 are not everything either and personally i’d rather have 4 wheels powering my car when accelerating out of a corner. not many drivers could even come close to replicating the "record" set by the LF-A considering its a much more difficult car to drive fast. look at the evo or sti. neither have respectable skidpad or figure 8 times compared to most rwd cars. hell my nissan 240sx pulls a higher skidpad rating then either but thats bc rwd allows the back end to slide out. doesn’t mean my 240 would slaughter an evo or sti around a track. and really how often are you goin to take your 300,000 dollar car to the ring. the GT-R is a much more usable car on many of the racetracks common in the U.S. which are smaller have tighter turns and much lower speeds are reached than at the ring. and how can you even compare a carrera or new evora. the evora is a joke posting sub .95g skidpad ratings on a rwd car and its 0-60 time is 5 seconds and 1/4 mile is in the 13’s not even close to the GT-R and the GT-R’s base price is lower. i do love the porsche however but its still not a match for the GT-R. and if you think the LF-A is so great put it up against the new 911 turbo which is still 170000 cheaper than the LF-A and it blows the doors off the LF-A in all aspects including acceleration and it has awd and sorry but lexus interior cant even compare to the porsche. and if we’re gonna compare cars with a 300,000 dollar difference in price tag lets compare say a koenigsegg ccx trevita to the LF-A it has a 1.6 g on the skidpad. how’s that for eye stretching g’s oh and it accelerates better and it has a nice interior and better gas mileage and handles better and has a smaller engine plus two less cyliders. if you wanna compare cars that are not even comparable we can do that too

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.18.2010

The GT-R is not faster to 100 or 120 than the LFA; it is faster to 90 and below, and after that the LFA’s high-reving V10 takes control. The GT-R’s handling is no match for the LFA’s; figure-eight, skidpad, any way you want to look at it the LFA is far superior to just about anything else on the road in terms of handling, as was its Supra predecessor. The GT-R performs better than the LFA at one thing and one thing only: low speed acceleration. Handling, braking, high-speed acceleration, and most importantly track times all go to the LFA.

And don’t talk about the GT-R as being a great daily driver; just because it has a trunk and a backseat doesn’t make it a good commuter car. It has already proven itself terribly unreliable in the powertrain and electronics departments, so you can tell me all about how much good those twin turbochargers and double-clutch transmission do you when they’re out on your mechanic’s worktable. If you want a serious performance machine that can also be used as a comfortable, practical, and reliable daily driver for around the same coin as the GT-R, buy a Carrera or the new Evora. And also, I’ve heard that the LFA is much more driver-involving and more fun to drive at speeds that won’t get you arrested. I of course haven’t been in an LFA yet and most likely never will, but if it’s anything like its Supra predecessor it should be much more fun than the video-game-like Nissan GT-R.

No video record, as far as I know, exists of the LFA’s 7.13 lap, which was supposedly run with traffic. I do have a video of it doing approximately 10 seconds faster—with traffic—than the GT-R’s best time, however, which is showed alongside the Viper’s 7:23 lap. It’s on my page a few articles down.

Naterade22  (238) posted on 05.18.2010

My thoughts exactly. It also proves they are worlds apart in terms of comparison. The LF-A is a high mph, track machine meant for high speeds. The GT-R is meant for acceleration and handling around mostly every street and highway. For any road within 500 miles of me, I would take the GT-R 100% of the time, even though the LF-A is daunting and incredible.

Naterade22  (233) posted on 05.17.2010

the GT-R has nice short gearing for quick acceleration up thru the 1/4 mile. while it may be a tick or two behind the LF-A at the quarter the GT-R has consistent 12 second times while the LF-A is a bit harder to modulate and taking turns in a GT-R is a breeze where as the LF-A can be pushed hard by a very experienced driver but slight oversteer or too much throttle will send the LF-A into a side wall or the grass. The GT-R is just simply easy to drive fast. watch a few reviews and you’ll see what i’m talking about. i’m not saying the LF-A isn’t a great car but for the majority of people the GT-R would be a better choice even if the prices were closer

Naterade22  (233) posted on 05.17.2010

the GT-R also out accelerates the LF-A to 100 and all the way up to around 120mph. last time i checked there’s very few tracks where the average speed is over 120 which is where the LF-A truly shines and considering i dont live in germany and wont be on the autobahn any time soon i’ll take the advantage in 0-100 rather than 120-190 oh and the GT-R without launch conrtol is 3.4. the GT-R weighs more and has a back seat and is a much more daily driveable car than the LF-A. and really how many people spend $300,000+ on a car and go and abuse it at the track? also i still haven’t seen any video proof of the LF-A lapping the ring 16 seconds faster then the GT-R but if you have please post a link to the vid. and last i checked the GT-R is no corvette when it comes to interior and livability. not to mention the more than $200,000 dollar price difference. oh and you can actually own a GT-R not just lease it. not to mention that nearly all AWD cars have significantly lower skidpad numbers than a rwd hence not sliding the back end out around a curve but keeping it under control. sure a professional racer may have lapped a LF-A faster around a track than the GT-R but i still haven’t seen proof of that and your average driver wouldn’t be able to do that. the GT-R simply makes driving easy enough to where the normal person could come close to the results around the ring but the LF-A is a completely different matter.

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.10.2010

Motor Trend’s 0-60 times were recorded without the LFA’s launch control, but 0-60 isn’t all that matters on a track anyway. The 60-100 mph acceleration—more indicative of speeds at which supercars like these would be exiting corners and therefore real-world track acceleration—goes to the LFA, as do the skidpad/figure-8/60-0 braking by huge margins, hence the fact that the LFA is 16 seconds faster around Nurburgring. The all-wheel drive GT-R is better at off-the-line acceleration, but that’s all it does better. Not to mention the difference in quality, but then again you get what you pay for.

Uncia  (233) posted on 05.10.2010

there’s a new comparison of the LF-A and the GT-R on motortrend. check it out. the 0-60 of the LF-A tested at 3.8 lagging a bit behind the GT-R

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.5.2010

Sorry you’re right. It’s a 6-speed not a 7-speed and it is single clutch. I was thinking of the PDK.

But the GTR and LFA are two completely different cars. One is a faster but less classy and sophisticated 911 on a budget, the other a Nurburgring record-breaking exotic with a pricetag to fit.

Naterade22  (238) posted on 05.4.2010

AK47 is right, it is a single clutch.

AK47  (1024) posted on 05.4.2010

No, its a single clutch sequential transmission. It has paddleshifters but does without a torque converter and is no dual clutch.

Uncia  (868) posted on 05.4.2010

@jtm0711 there is no video that I know of for the 7:13 run but there is one in which the LFA, with traffic, laps faster than the Viper ACR’s 7:23, which are shown side-by-side. It’s on my page a few articles down. The car is a disguised but fully loaded production model except the suspension, which was deemed insufficient. The production car has the same suspension as the 7:13 car.

@Naterade22 I agree. The GTR and LFA are not competitiors.

@AK47 the LFA also has a dual-clutch transmission. It is a 7-speed dual-clutch sequential automatic and the warranty still stands on the car no matter how many hard launches you’ve done.

AK47  (1024) posted on 05.4.2010

Less sophisticated? Which car, might I ask has a dual clutch transmission, a 50/50 layout and hits the 1/4 mile faster than any other car with comparable power to weight? It ain’t the LF-A or the Turbo.

Typical Nissan fashion? LOL! Toyota doesn’t even have a dual clutch. Besides anyone can tell you that an AWD car will put far more stress on a gearbox than a rear wheel car. Especially when the engine provides turboed torque instead of the miserable 390lb/ft the LF-A puts out.

Show me a dual clutch car that can handle as many hard launches as a GT-R and I’ll give your opinion some thought. The Veyron can only manage one and the single clutch R8 and Gallardos are the same.

Naterade22  (238) posted on 05.4.2010

While the LFA is still a great work of art, it is a car you will never see as commonly as a GT-R. I almost think of it as a prototype. The price tags don’t even begin to compare and I’m sure given the same amount of money, Nissan could have increased its game given that amount of money, and while the GT-R is a lot of electricmotor-functions, it is still the best supercar for its value. The fact that a car that heavy can put up numbers the way it does, is astounding in terms of engineering. The cars really can’t be compared that well. The GT-R can be compared to the 911 turbo, while the LFA was after higher standards. They were built for different purposes. Give Nissan a ton of money to make a super- high end supercar and I’m sure they could do it.

Naterade22  (233) posted on 05.4.2010

the LF-A that ran nurburgring racetrack was not a production model so it is sure to gain some weight by the time it is ready for production. also have you ever seen a video of this claimed run? where’s the full unedited video with a timer from a stop start. not a roll. also nissan was conservative on their acceleration ratings as many car reviews done by car and driver, motortrend and others have shown 0-60 time from 3.2 to 3.3 seconds. also the awd system in the gtr definitely has an advantage over the LF-A plus the near $220,000 price difference. not to mention the GT-R has a back seat so you can share the fun with a few friends smiley

Car Finder: