New spy footage of 2009 Nissan Skyline GT-R at track

[Thorburn]

I used to work as an attendant at a petrol station, one day a Ferrari 355 came in and the one thing that I really remember was the precision of the thread on the petrol cap, it was perfectly machined.
I've been in a Ferrari 456 and you get the same impression from all the interior too. Everything just feels that cut above say our BMW's or an Audi or even something more exotic like a Porsche.

 

[dantruon]

Mitsubishi's Evolution 8 Kick all asses and as Top Gear once suggested that it is a cheaper version of a Ferrari but with better handling.

 

[Capeta]

Mitsubishi's Evolution 8 Kick all asses and as Top Gear once suggested that it is a cheaper version of a Ferrari but with better handling.

I don't think so. The EVO has had its @ss kicked on the track by many cars. Just look at Top Gears lap time rankings.

 

[Phil]

I used to work as an attendant at a petrol station, one day a Ferrari 355 came in and the one thing that I really remember was the precision of the thread on the petrol cap, it was perfectly machined.
I've been in a Ferrari 456 and you get the same impression from all the interior too. Everything just feels that cut above say our BMW's or an Audi or even something more exotic like a Porsche.

Build quality isn't bad at all - but there are also examples of design flaws that just boggle the mind, like for example the petrol cap on a Ferrari Enzo that will burn your hands at a petrol station because it gets so hot from the engine.

What I love about Ferrari's though is that they sound simply awesome. We chased a 360 CS through the alps last July and the sound was truly incredible!

Mitsubishi's Evolution 8 Kick all asses and as Top Gear once suggested that it is a cheaper version of a Ferrari but with better handling.

I wouldn't say the handling is better - and on track, a 360CS would absolutely kill any Evo outthere. Besides, how much handling is there involved if the active diff is always there to keep the car on the track and pointing in the right direction? Certainly not a very rewarding experience. While I'm not a Ferrari fan in the least, I do admire them for what they do and do right.

 

[DJ12]

I don't think so. The EVO has had its @ss kicked on the track by many cars. Just look at Top Gears lap time rankings.

But the FQ400 punches way above it's weight in that list considering how much it costs and the fact it is a family sedan rather than some exotic streamlined super car.

While there is obviously going to be plenty of cars faster, it's to be commended in my opinion.

I haven't really taken note of the placings in the list, but I would imagine it is higher up the list than any other "normal" car.

 

[_xxx_]

Mitsubishi's Evolution 8 Kick all asses and as Top Gear once suggested that it is a cheaper version of a Ferrari but with better handling.

Whoever suggested that should be fired. Total bull.

 

[Phil]

But the FQ400 punches way above it's weight in that list considering how much it costs and the fact it is a family sedan rather than some exotic streamlined super car.

Actually, an Evo is quite expensive (especially the FQ400 version) - at the very latest when you start to consider the turbo servicing intervals. I'd also argue that EVO's are at the top of being the easiest car's to extract the most performance out of...

 

[DJ12]

£50,000 is still much less than £190,000+ Lambo it was keeping pace with round a track.

I also bet the servicing cost are much less than any exotic.

 

[Thorburn]

£50,000 is still much less than £190,000+ Lambo it was keeping pace with round a track.

Top Gear is not a factual show, its shot for entertainment.

I also bet the servicing cost are much less than any exotic.

Nope, the Evo's are VERY expensive cars to run, I'd suggest its in the same ball park as a 911 Turbo to service, perhaps even more when you consider the frequency esp. with the FQ400.

 

[Phil]

£50,000 is still much less than £190,000+ Lambo it was keeping pace with round a track.

I also bet the servicing cost are much less than any exotic.

Lambo's might be considered exotic, but I wouldn't call them very quick around a track. They're luxurious sportscars no doubt though - but not focused enough to be keeping up with more dedicated cars like i.e. 360CS, GT3RS etc. And as Thorburn pointed out, don't under estimate servicing on Evo's, especially a FQ400 one...

 

[DJ12]

Top Gear is not a factual show, its shot for entertainment.

Entertainment yes, but they don't build a car up for kicks.

If they show an FQ400 chasing a Lambo round a track without it pulling away, then I would suggest that is actually a true indicator of the cars ability.

 

[Phil]

If they show an FQ400 chasing a Lambo round a track without it pulling away, then I would suggest that is actually a true indicator of the cars ability.

1.) The film is highly edited and there are sniplets where you can see the Lambo pulling away
2.) The Murcielago is quicker around the lap accoarding to TopGear's own time
3.) The EVO is a lot easier to drive at the upper limit than the Murcielago is, hence why the Murcielago lost control towards the end (assuming it wasn't staged).
4.) The Murcielago is hardly any reference around a track IMO. There are quicker cars.

I guess no one is saying the EVO isn't quick around the track - it most definately is and it's definately one of the quicker cars in its price range... I just don't think the Murcielago is any reference to be comparing an EVO with. If you already want to prove how good it's handling is on track, might as well compare it with some track-focused cars, i.e. 360CS, GT3RS, Caterhams, Noble etc.

 

[_xxx_]

£50,000 is still much less than £190,000+ Lambo it was keeping pace with round a track.

I also bet the servicing cost are much less than any exotic.

You're comparing a souped-up asian car from mid-consumer segment against a hand-built masterpiece of modern tech with carefully chosen interieur materials. That's really not even funny. The prices don't come out of thin air either.

 

[DJ12]

What is funny is you suggesting that a Murcielago is somehow more technically advanced than an Evo 8.

If anything it would be the other way around.

The fact is most people buy sports cars because they are fast, not because of the way they look or the materials they are made from.

 

[Thorburn]

Entertainment yes, but they don't build a car up for kicks.

If they show an FQ400 chasing a Lambo round a track without it pulling away, then I would suggest that is actually a true indicator of the cars ability.

Yes they do.
Take the Brabus tuned SL for example.
Clarkson talks about how much 'torques' it had (and switches randomly between lb/ft and Nm every other review) before they limited and claims it was limited because first the traction control just refused to let it move and then when disabled it destroyed the tyres.

Complete bollocks, the torque is limited because the automatic gearbox simply couldn't take it, they'd break, pure and simple.

Another fine example is the "BMW's M5/M6 is too complicated", they say "Oh do 0-60 in x.xx seconds" and then spend ages going through the settings in the iDrive and saying how difficult and slow it is to make it sporty.
Well alternatively they could have just pressed the 'M' button on the steering wheel which by default goes to the full on sports settings.

Every show is riddled with inaccuracies and staged events for the sake of 'the show', to prove points in an exagerated manner, absolute truth does not matter so long as its entertaining.

But you know, whatever.

 

[Capeta]

But the FQ400 punches way above it's weight in that list considering how much it costs and the fact it is a family sedan rather than some exotic streamlined super car.

While there is obviously going to be plenty of cars faster, it's to be commended in my opinion.

I haven't really taken note of the placings in the list, but I would imagine it is higher up the list than any other "normal" car.

I don't consider a rallycar a "normal" car.

The fact is most people buy sports cars because they are fast, not because of the way they look or the materials they are made from.

Uh..no otherwise sportscars would all look like sh*t.

 

[DJ12]

I do.

An Evo is exactly the same shape as a Mitsubishi Charisma with a few added extra spoilers, that is what I mean by normal car.

It is not a streamline shape by any means.

Many Sportscars do look butt-ugly it's only really your Ferraris and Lamborginis that look exceptional in my opinion.

 

[Phil]

The fact is most people buy sports cars because they are fast, not because of the way they look or the materials they are made from.

Fast is very relative. Fast on a drag strip? Fast around a track? What track? Rally? Nurbourgring? Nordschleife? Depending on the qualities of the car, the results will vary quite a bit... And the term sportscars is quite a loose term as well. There are sports cars that just focus on looking fast while being quite confortable at the same time as well. Then you have more dedicated machinery where resources are spent to make it quick around a track etc... Lamborghini's certainly are not track dedicated cars. Neither is an EVO.



Thorburn,

Every show is riddled with inaccuracies and staged events for the sake of 'the show', to prove points in an exagerated manner, absolute truth does not matter so long as its entertaining.

I'm not quite sure I really agree with this. The entertainment in TopGear isn't its inaccuracies (which there aren't many) - it's just that their opinion and views on particular issues are presented in an exagerated manner that just happens to make the whole thing entertaining to watch.

I.e. the M5 review
The complicated nature of the car is something that probably surprised Clarkson which is why he went through the effort to show how stupidly complicated the car can be (besides the M5 being German and we all know how Clarkson likes to take a dig at them for being to technical/perfectionist etc).

TopGear is all about differenciating entertainment/exageration from the technical bits which do happen to be quite accurate.

 

[Thorburn]

Nope, I know just how inaccurate it can be.

The car club I'm in has users who lent them a Mk1 Golf GTI and Mk4 Golf (can't remember if it was a GTI or R32, think it was an R32) for the 'new vs old' drag races.

In the show the Mk1 wins it (just) but they actually ran the 'race' 3 or 4 times and then showed the only one the Mk1 won after the Mk4 owner bogged down his launch, they simply re-ran the race until they got the result they wanted while still looking convincing.

 

[DJ12]

Even Clarkson couldn't make a MK1 golf GTI beat a 4x4 R32 and make it believable.

A mark 4 GTI is believable. And I guess if I was inclined to look the factory figures from VW would confirm as much considering the mark 4 was a bloated pig and the MK1 a dainty little thing.

After a little digging it seems the MK1 has a 0-60 time of around 7 seconds while the mk4 is over 10. Clarkson probably re-ran the test to get the correct result. either the mk1's owner cannot drive or his car was showing it's age.