Comments by "Rousseau" (@rousseau327) on "Auto Express"
channel.
-
90
-
73
-
52
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
40
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
18
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
+Stephen Unless you're actually a driver worth his or her salt, and is actually serious about track days, all that stuff about torsional rigidity, wider track, you won't even notice it. Otherwise, if you can't utilize those technical advantages, it's all in your head. The Spyder, with 95% of the performance of the GT4, with the open air, on a mountain/seaside road, with the exhaust screaming behind your ear in addition to the experience of driving the car (turn in, yaw, steering, etc.), is what makes the Spyder more of an experience than the GT4. Nowadays, purists are all about the experience, ie the whole manual vs. DCT debate. If purists are really so much about the experience, the extra performance that the GT4 offers, that 90% of drivers would not even notice, is not something that is valid towards the typical purist, just like how the quicker shift times of a DCT do not override the experience that the manuals give you.
Of course, if it's simply just your personal preference to like the GT4 over the Spyder, there's nothing wrong with that, and that doesn't mean you're not a purist. It's just that in my opinion, the Spyder provides the experience that entices purists that the GT4 doesn't. But then again, there are purists who are very into the numbers and what's on paper, so I can see where you're coming from.
And I mean, as far as your coupe 911 vs. cab 911 thing goes, I actually agree with that, but the Boxster Spyder isn't exactly a normal convertible, is it?
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
Fast Er I disagree. Meeting a client at work is vastly different than presenting yourself in video to a varying audience, many with purposes for entertainment at home. If this were a sales video, or a pitch made to clients specifically, I agree, shed the shades. But not in this case. I remember various other videos where people wear shades to review cars, no one seemed to have a problem. Plus, if it's sunny, and it's uncomfortable for the reviewer to not wear shades, I see no reason why they should not wear shades, squint, and ultimately even make it dangerous for them to drive with the sun in their eyes, at those speeds.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
***** 1) Other offerings that competes and beats Porsche, but you bring up the P1 in a discussion about cars in the $200,000 price range? Get the fuck on out of here. Keep talking kiddo, if the Porsche make run of the mill cars like SUVs and Sedans, then that makes it all the more impressive that a 450hp GT3 can spank a 600+hp 12C around a track.
And just an edit: You said something along the lines of "650S, 675LT, and P1, any of which will beat the 918 around a track." I'm just going to let your $4.2m company owning mind to tell me what's wrong with that sentence. I dare you to find me a stock 650S that can beat a 918. I fear for your company if thats the kind of attention to detail you have.
2) Forgive me if I don't believe you, given you have no proof of your company to this point, and no videos of any sort to back up the fact that you do own these cars. Hey, maybe you do, but until then, I'll take the word of others on this website who actually have video proof that they've owned cars like the GT3, 458 Italia, and the 650S, or at least tested them, and came out and said the GT3 is more special than the Mclaren.
So hey, if you give me like a website to your company and proof that you run the company, by all means. Otherwise, I'm a chief precision engineer of a company valuated at $17B who said I drove cars on the Motor Speedway so as to not sound pretentious on Youtube, but hey if you want to play this card, then by all means my friend. I'll bet you don't believe me at all. Well guess what? You have said nothing that reflects the intelligence of someone who lives up to your claims as well.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
***** Please please, look up the definition of "hater" on urban dictionary or something, and realize the only hateful comments are from you. Let me list it out for you, cause I'm rather bored at work:
My Comments:
1. GT3 and GT3 RS same ballpark price range, so P1 and 675LT comparison you said was invalid, told you not to jump the gun.
2. Told you you wasted my time because I called you ignorant, because you focused so incredibly much on the exclusivity of cars, and called the 911 not special. Have you driven one? I don't own one, but I've driven them out in Vegas Motor Speedway, both the GT3 and the 650S, and the GT3 is heaps more special to drive. So you can understand why I said you're ignorant.
3. After you've equated ignorance with lack of money, my goodness, can you blame me for not believing you have money?
Whereas you? Hating on more affordable cars, calling them shit boxes, making assumptions, and then turn around to call me the hater? You either inherited all your money from a dead relative, thus have no talent in money acquisition whatsoever, or are lying about having money, because I have yet to meet people who are that stupid, and have made their own money. I've met ignorant rich people, but not stupid ones. Hope you can comprehend the difference in that ;)
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
V Sizzle Never heard one reviewer say it drove as well as the R8, or the 570S, or the 911 Turbo S. I've read somewhere it drives on par with the GT-R in terms of feel, maybe a bit better. GT-R is a 8+ year old car.
And it doesn't matter if its the first iteration in a while for Honda, if you launch yourself into one of the toughest segments in the world, have something to show for it. Not something subpar for the price.
And whether or not you consider a 911 Turbo S a supercar is irrelevant. It drives like one, feels like one, and looks like one. Just cause it doesn't change much in looks doesn't mean it doesn't look like a supercar. It looked like one 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and it still does now. Does the Aston look less of a super now than when the DB9 first came out many years ago? No.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Stephen Rose Let me put this in another perspective. I produce a hypothesis for an experiment called X. This is experiment has never been done, but all the math, all the science behind it should add up, thus in theory it should add up and pan out. But once put to the test, the experiment yields different results; this happens all the time. So in practice experiment X does not work. But that does not change the fact that IN THEORY, it should still work. Is that simple enough for you?
And fyi just because the 0-60 times from manufacturers put the Porsche at 2.9s and 3.5s for the Jag, the race is still a mile long. That's a huge distance for a car that has more power to theoretically catch up towards the end. Of course I highly doubt anyone believed the Jag could actually take it. Obviously anyone who knows the capabilities of either cars will know that. But you know that through practice, but IN THEORY, they should be a lot closer.
And just as another reference: GT3 vs. 12C. In theory, they are very similarly weighted, but the GT3 is much, MUCH less powerful. Although it has other performance features like RWS, it should theoretically lose out to the 12C on track. Could be a close race, but the GT3 should lose. But it doesn't. EVO tested it to be quicker than the 12C. In practice, these two are neck and neck. In the theory, they shouldn't be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
G9 Music Lol, alright, if you want to stick to that, that's cool. And if they truly are opinions, then my point is just as valid as yours. Idiots will stay idiots I guess.
What kind of insecurities? My insecurity that 911s are winning just about every comparison on the web, so I gotta make sure people know it's better? Wow, real insecure, isn't it? If anything, insecurities are all over your right now. Keep telling yourself I'm struggling, maybe one day you'll believe it; I'm chilling right now. I've talked to way dumber people on Youtube before.
Here's the definition of practical: "of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas." You tell me how having a traditional front-engined design, that admittedly everyone is used to, but no rear seats, lower fuel economy, has to do with practicality.
Sure, MOST people would think an engine with more output is better. But on a thread fill with people who at least know a little bit about cars, you are not most people. A better engine is not one with more power. By that definition, I can strap a turbocharger on a 335i engine and create more output than the M4's. That doesn't not make my 335i have a better engine.
Umar Khan No, it doesn't share the same sound as other V8, but it has a similar sound; V8s always do. There are components of the noise that sets each V8 apart, but that's about it. NOTHING sounds like a flat 6 in a 911, aside from another flat 6 in another 911. The straight 6 in a BMW sounds nothing like it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hakeem Kazak Well if you want to play it that way, why don't you get this through YOUR dense head: People who have money care about money. Just because they're rich doesn't mean they blow their money away. You think they got rich because they spend their money carelessly? Unless the buyer is techie who really cares that it's a hybrid or simply that much of an NSX fan, there is no logical reason for anyone to buy the NSX. Anyone with money is smart enough to see that. That fact that you think wealth=you don't care about money shows how fucking hideously stupid you really are. And I actually know some people who do own cars that are $200,000 or more. They cannot spend money without a care in the world. They're rich, they have money leftover to spend even after their big house, supercar, and many many things they own, but they are not careless with their money. Price always matters when you're competing in a segment. If your product is more expensive, there should be a reason why it is so in the consumer's perspective. The NSX lacks much of that.
I loved the LFA when it came out btw, but hey, keep generalizing, that will get you places.
How about this, if you reply again with no logic or reasoning, and only insults that make you look like the piece of dirt you are, don't bother responding. At least V Swizzle can form a coherent argument
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
swunt10 Japanese cars? Where in the list of cars I have listed out, did I list a Japanese one? I don't think much about the GT-R, but although since your sarcastic ass has brought it up, the LFA is more of a supercar than the i8 will ever be.
Which one of the recent BMWs can you actually call an "ultimate driving machine"? Please, if you still believe BMW is genuinely making cars to that motto, you are one blind fan of BMW. The E9x and E60 BMW were the last BMWs that can actually be considered ultimate driving machines.
Oh yes, tell me more about how the 458 Speciale, Mclaren 650S, 911 Turbo S, and a plethora of upcoming Japanese hybrid supercars, are soo lacking in new technology. Get real, the i8 is not revolutionizing the world with its tech.
Stop trying to make the i8 out to be what it isn't. There's nothing wrong with what the i8 is, it is just not a supercar, let alone the king of supercars.
2
-
swunt10 It doesn't matter if the LFA is that much more expensive, if one is going to claim the i8 as the king of supercars, it needs to be a better supercar than most if not all supercars available.
And when did I EVER say an ultimate driving machine needs a big engine? I said BMW is no longer the ultimate driving machine. Look at the E92 M3, E46 M3, E60 M5, E39 M5, E36 M3, E30 M3. Those are CLASSIC examples of what the BMW ultimate driving machines should be like. I don't expect them to make mirror copies of them in modern form, but the F10 M5 is a far cry from anything "ultimate" in a driving machine. Want an ultimate driving sedan? Try the Panamera GTS. Motortrend even went as far to say the E63 AMG S is a better driving car than the M5. Ultimate driving machine? You really still believe that?
Right, the i8 is quite original for its hybrid tech right? You, get real, because the only thing BMW did was put already existing hybrid tech into a sportscar. I did not say other cars have revolutionary tech, but the i8 does not either. And as far as carbon fiber goes, Mclaren uses it extensively.
Your explanation on why a supercar is called a supercar shows you really know nothing about what makes supercars super. And so what if the hypothetical millionaire chooses to buy an i8? Great for him, great for BMW. You seem to think that I think the i8 is a piece of shit. I don't. I will repeat this, as it is my original point: While the i8 is a good hybrid sportscar, it is not even close to being the king of supercars.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tobi Ogunsanwo Well guess what buddy, there are two interpretations of what he said. 1) That Porsche is underrating the horsepower figures, which is what you think he means, and 2) that driving the car feels like there is more power than it says on paper. If you cannot differentiate the two, you really need to go back and drive a few more cars and take an english course before you begin to comment on this thread again.
And concrete proof? No such thing as concrete proof in interpretations. Concrete proof is a thing of mathematics, science, and law. Not what you're trying to do. You don't have concrete proof either, because it's not possible in this subject.
He says the figures are conservative while saying how fast the car is, therefore not directly correlating the conservatism with the power figures, but how the car feels. Which means the more sensible interpretation is the the 2nd one.
And your average person is quite blunt minded, if they're all like you.
1
-
1
-
gasdive And what happens when you need to charge on a relatively long distance trip? It's not the act of leaving your house, arriving at the gas station, and go back home that takes 20 minutes, its the act of refueling ONLY. Imagine if you were to drive to a supercharging station and charge. Given a 10 minute round trip (very close station), and a 30 minute charge, that's 40 minutes. Of course, you can just charge at home, but what if you need to leave as soon as possible? What if you need to leave mid-day after driving in the morning/noon? You may not have the time to charge at home, and you may not want to waste 40 minutes charging at a supercharger. In terms of time, there is absolutely no outlet in which an EV is more efficient at the moment. Tesla obviously realizes this, and they're experimenting with battery swapping technology as an alternating to high speed charging. But it's quite clear that there are people who refuse to recognize this flaw in EVs.
1
-
1
-
bammerburn Where I live, California, trips from northern california to southern california are not uncommon. They are trips that are well over 5 hours one-way. Majority of the people want to get to their destinations as soon as possible. You want to be the guy that tells them they have to add at least an extra 30 minutes to their plans (one-way)? I'm sure there are people who will do it, seeing as the plentiful amount of superchargers in California, but it doesn't change the fact that the MAJORITY still see it as an inconvenience. And what of in areas of the world where superchargers are truly few and far between? You'd have to drive like SAINT to ensure you get the most out of your charge, because of the sparsely located superchargers. And before you say anything, as common as these long distance trips are, I realize people don't do this everyday. But again, the MAJORITY of people would want a car than can do it. And however irrelevant you think this is to you, it's a fact that it's a problem with EVs, just like how not being able to refuel at home is problem with gasoline powered cars. Just because EVs are great for daily use does not mean everyone can convert, even if given the money, and it certainly doesn't mean it's without its flaws.
And I did say for everyday driving, EVs are great, and I do love the idea. And if I had a family, I would love to have one. Did you read my comments before saying I have problems?But seeing as I don't have a family, I really can only afford one car. I travel a few times a year, and the problem with EVs that I just described means an EV, at the moment, cannot be my only car. I know for a fact that I am not the only person in this situation.
1
-
1
-
obielicious It is not. A smartphone that runs out of battery does not leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere on a long distance drive. You run out of battery on a phone? Drive to the nearest payphone. Maybe takes 10-20 minutes out of your life, tops. Need to use other smartphone functions? If you carry your charger around, you quite literally plug your phone in at a local Starbucks for a minute or two, run whatever app you need to run, and be on your way; you can use the phone as it charges. Can you use your car as it charges? If it really is an emergency that you need to use a depleted phone, there are ways of doing so within 5 minutes time, given you have a charger. Hell, nowadays you can plug it into your car to charge as you use it. But run out of charge on your car? You're stranded and will be waiting for a tow. Anyone who has been stranded knows this could an hour or more just for the tow truck to arrive. And you clearly cannot just charge it for 5 minutes and then use whatever charge you just got, because before long you'll be back for more. And for obvious reasons, you can't drive your car as it charges, like you can use a smartphone as it charges. And if, as bammerburn explained, the only thing the EV does to change people's lifestyle is to change their habits around charging times, then yes, it's a good analogy. But that can be said about ANYTHING that charges. The point of this thread isn't the solely the charging times of EVs, but the problems of EVs that prevent everybody from buying one. In that respect, the cellphone analogy is completely off: a big problem is running out of battery on long drives, or even aggressive shorter drives. Depleting a cellphone battery generally has nowhere near the same repercussions when you use it extensively as depleting the battery on your car where you're not at a place to charge either.
1
-
gasdive It's not the act of running out of charge that's the problem. The matter of the scarce supercharging stations relative to gas stations (this leads to meticulous planning on long distance drives, and very cautious driving), and the long charging times, even for the superchargers. In everyday driving, I concede (I already have, in fact. You'd know if you read my comment) that EVs are really quite good for your wallet, your time, and the environment.
It's not a matter of it being IMPOSSIBLE to drive EVs on long distances, as you seem to think I'm implying, it's an inconvenience. I have been on 7 hour+ journeys with a Tesla Model S before. If you drive above 75 mph, you are not getting optimal distance for your charge. It was an extreme inconvenience, as it lengthened our travel times, made our foot itch cause it was hardly on the pedal of a very fun car to drive, and everyone around you is annoyed at you for driving at, or 5 mph lower than the speed limit. Keep in mind, this is in California, where superchargers are really quite common compared to the rest of the world. And when we did stop for a charge at a supercharging station, it added over 30 minutes to our already elongated travel time. If you're fine with all of this, EVs are fine, all around. But it doesn't change the fact that many, if not most, people are NOT fine with these issues. It remains a problem that needs to be addressed in EVs in order for the majority of the world to spend their own money to buy an EV over an all around more convenient ICE vehicle.
And there are enough 24hr gas stations for you to arrive at one that is not, and then find one that is. If you left your tank to be so close to empty that you got stranded at a non-24hr gas station, that is a matter of your own lack of planning. It's common knowledge to start looking for a gas station well before the needle hits red. And even then, cars have reserve fuel that can keep you running for 40-60 miles, depending on your car's MPG rating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tim Austin Show the exact law. Everything I've read from the DMV handbook point to it being a suggestion.
Legal responsibility? Cut the crap. If I can stay wide awake and focused for over 2 hours at a time, I will. Just because you have the focus capacity of a teaspoon doesn't mean everyone else does. Your failure here is trying to measure EVERYONE'S capacity with a standard time. I know people who can barely drive for 1 hour let alone 2. And others that can drive 4-5 without feeling fatigued. By the way, you haven't even shown me the actual "law" yet. Please cut this "legal" crap until you do.
I would hold off on that really immature attack on petrol heads if I were you. Are you trying to insinuate that I am selfish and irresponsible because I can drive longer than you want to believe (what a joke, refer to previous paragraph) and a petrol head by extension because I am objectively looking at both the petrol vehicles and electric ones? Wow, really is what a petrolhead is, huh? Your prejudices is pretty clear. At least TRY to be objective. Refer to the last paragraph if you're actually deluded enough to think what I am here is not objective.
How many trips have co-drivers? Well I don't know about you, but all of my friends are older than the age of 18 and know how to drive, therefore, all of them can be co drivers, if even for only an hour.
No time for toilet breaks? Buddy, if nature is calling, you have to go. Unless you want to go in a bottle, which we really didn't want to in a Tesla, you HAVE to make the stops.
You have issues if a toilet stop and swapping seats in a car takes you 30 minutes. And for the sake of argument, even if it does last 30 minutes, how many rest areas have superchargers right now?
Again, please read what I previously wrote. I said nobody, hopefully, drives so long everyday. But it's not uncommon is many areas of the world to drive these distance a few times a year. People want a car that can do everything, yes? Well at the moment, it's difficult (note, not impossible) to do this with an EV. However minute you may think this is, it is an issue that bothers some people nonetheless. Just because you like EVs, it doesn't mean it's without flaws. And just because these flaws don't mean squat to you, doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything to anyone else. Widen your vision.
AND NO FOR FUCKS SAKE. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A HORRIFIC INCONVENIENCE. I am just saying it IS one, and it MAY be one that is too big to look over for MANY people. Jesus fucking christ, every time anyone has ANY criticisms about EVs or points out an certain aspect where gasoline cars MAY have the edge, people like you go nuts and think these critics are completely bashing on the car. Is it that hard to acknowledge that EVs are not perfect? Is it that hard to actually read the parts where I say EVs are actually quite great? Is it that hard to actually keep your views objective and see the pros and cons of each system? Cause right now, you obviously can only see the pros of EVs and the cons of ICE engine cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
João Soares Your example is terrible. Tell me why they would cancel it if all Porsche had was a Cayenne Diesel. Isn't it because it's an SUV, it rides inches upon inches higher than the F-Type, it weighs significantly more than the F-Type, it has less than half the power, it's performance figures are entirely off from the F-Type, it seats five comfortably, it has a huge trunk, lots of storage space and MORE. In other words, it's a different class of vehicle. In the case of the C4S? The ONLY difference is the 2+2 seating (which all 911s other than GTxs have), and the AWD. You really think they'll turn down the offer because of such a difference? Especially seeing as the Jag has significantly better performance figures, it'd be logical to think that a C4S wouldn't be too far off. Of course, they knew this is still not a completely fair comparison, so they took the liberty to tell you that a C2S is available.
And honestly, did you expect the Jag to fare any better against a C2S?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Most performance for money? Not really, the ZR1 has been posting better real performance figures for ages. Admittedly the ZR1 cost more than the early R35s, so I'll give this one to you. Most usability for everyday and track-driving? Nope, a 911 Turbo does it better. Highest speed through any corner? Nope, ZR1, Viper TA, 991 GT3, Aventador, GT2 RS, need I go on? Fits 4 People? Doesn't mean anything, a Jeep Wrangler can fit 4 people. Is the fastest car for almost everybody because of hightech? Nope, 458 Italia and 991 both have tech that can make your average driver go fast. And guess what? You don't feel the tech in those cars, you just go.
A "best" car is a car that car do the most things, surprise surprise, the best. In your list, the GT-R only has 1 of them down, and barely at that. The GT-R may be the best at one thing, but it is not the best car.
It was surprising, because Nissan was able to create a car that can roll with the exotic supercars, at well under 100k. Just because a manufacturer made brilliant cars in the past, does NOT mean they'll continue to make them in the future.
And Porsche keeps adding power? Give me a break, the 991 GT3 has 475 hp, and it is arguably the best and fastest driver's car in a class of cars filled with 500+ to 600+ vehicles. Hop off the Nurburgring, and I'd honestly love to see a GT-R pull away from a GT3.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kaisuke971 Yes, because the two tires have crucial, FUNDAMENTAL differences such as a v6 vs. V10, RWD vs. AWD, ~100hp, VASTLY differently aerodynamics...that was the most, fucking, stupid analogy I have ever read. Get over yourself, the GTR is great, but its fucking generations old by now. It's not a shame to lose to a brand new GT3 that can lap at the pace of a 12C. It's only a shame that fanboys like you, whether you admit to it or not, keep blaming the TIRES for a 2 second difference in the wet, when both tires are semi-slicks.
To sum it up, you only managed to grasp onto one thing: Two different interpretations from 2 companies. You failed to see that the fundamental differences between your analogy is vastly different. The Viper ACR and the Nismo serve the same purpose but are in nearly different performance categories on the track, the Pirelli and Michelins semi-slicks are VERY close competitors.
In any case, I'm done arguing with someone who insists a different, yet equally good, set of semi-slicks is what made the car with a ~100hp deficit and RWD disadvantage 2 seconds faster in the rain.
1
-
Kaisuke971 1. Nissan invests and seriously relies and Ring times to market their vehicles. You only need to refer to them marketing their Nismo lap record, with non-street legal components to see this. In addition to cross referencing its lap times with the ZR1 and other similarly quick cars on the Ring, with their lap times outside the Ring. No one who has been around takes the GTR's Ring time without a grain of salt.
2. I AM NOT SAYING THE TIRES DONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Jesus fucking christ. Remember back when I said they were SIMILAR and NOT the SAME? Michelin is definitely by far better than Dunlop, but you're going sit their with a straight face and tell me that's what made a TWO SECOND difference on a roughly 1.5 minutes track, in the RAIN, between the GTR and a GT3? A RWD v.s AWD car? A car that laps the Ring, supposedly, 7 seconds quicker than the GT3? THAT'S WHAT IM GETTING AT. All you people are making the tire out to be the sole reason why the GT3 won, when anyone with half a brain will tell you two similar tires, whether it's from Dunlop, Michelin, Pirelli, what have you, on two supercars do not make up for that lap time difference with the conditions as they are.
Stop arguing that the tires are not the same, because we already established that from the first comment.
3. The ACR can keep pace on the track with the likes of the 918 and P1 under the correct driver, and can sometimes even beat those hypercars. Until you can find me a Nismo that is street legal and not tuned by Nissan that can do the same, then the ACR is on a different playing field than the Nismo.
4. The 918 beat the P1 on various tracks when the P1 is lighter, has more power, and had on Trofeo Rs, in the P1's track mode. Not saying tires are insignificant, but there are so many factors than make the 918 quick: AWD, Rear wheel steering are two that come to mind.
Expand your sights a little. The world more than just tires and whether or not one company is better at it than another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
enemay Because, in case you didn't know, journalist don't compare the price of cars, but the essence of cars. The essence of a GT-R is most closely matched with the 911 Turbo S, while the essence of the Nismo GT-R is closely matched with the GT2 RS. And before you saying anything, think about this: how is comparing a car that is track-tuned, track ready, and made specifically for the track with road-use as an afterthought, with a car like the Turbo S, fair?
In any case, I would think that GT-R fans would know this: Japanese automakers INTENTIONALLY price their appropriate cars lower than their German rivals, so they can claim better bang for your buck. By this reasoning, Nissan intentionally priced the GT-R significantly lower than the 911 Turbo S, to attract buyers who aren't keen to spend too much. You will see this also applies to the Nismo GT-R. The Nismo GT-R will very likely be priced significantly lower than the GT2 RS, giving the Nismo a better bang for your buck factor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** And by the way, even if you do provide evidence somehow that you do own these cars, I would still take the word of the other Youtubers/Reviewers because they define their standard of special by how the car feels to them, ie how it drives, how it sounds, how the engine feels, etc. They don't base specialness off of the overall reputation of the company, how many other people have it, or what other people think of it.
Specialness is what you think of the car, not what you think others think of it. Food for thought, just in case you have some free time running your $4.2 million company ;)
1
-
***** I hope you're able to afford faster internet connection given how rich you are, because it's been over 24 hours and I still do not see that video in your profile.
And can you read your second to last comment please, and then tell me which one of us is hating? I'll show you every reasoning behind each insult I give you, but hey, I'd be glad to see if you find something in that comment where it isn't just pure, immature, $4.2m company running [;)], material of a insult.
Good day to you kiddo, I really do hope you own a 570S someday :) and if you already do, and it turns out you're not lying, I really hope you expand your horizons and reduce that ignorance too.
1
-
Meatpunch Thanks for repeating his narrowminded point buddy. I hope you even read some of my comments:
1) I asked for proof
2) I said I'd still believe others, because they're more reputable, and they have video evidence of THEM driving both cars, and saying the GT3 is more special. Keyword: REPUTABLE. ie journalist, reviewers, ex race car drivers, number of subscribers, and more.
3) If you can look me dead in the eye and say the GT3 is just a kitcar 911 like Tesla1981 did, then you're a moron. I don't care if you like the Mclaren more, or think it's more special, that's yours and Tesla1981's opinion. But to say the GT3 is not special just cause of the high volume of Carreras? Wooo, ignorance galore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1