GTR Sales....ouch

I think people are afraid the technology failing(expensive), and that if they do anything to use the car in a performance manner, it will break, and Nissan won't cover it.

Nissan sold cars that if used some of their functions - they wouldn't warranty the car. Dumb idea, who wants to buy a car that voids its own warranty? They disabled stuff in the next years car I think, but the damage to public image was done.

I would NOT buy a new one, and I'm not likely to go for a used one either, as odds they would both trashed and unreliable. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

how many did they import?

I don't see rows of GTRs lined up on dealer lots.

if they imported 1,000 and 877 were sold (across a dealer network of a few thousand dealers), than I'd say not bad. if they imported 2,000, then Houston we have a problem.

 

Not sure what they forecast, but a total of 877 doesn't sound terrible -- it's expensive for a Nissan, and as discussed in another thread it looks kind of like a big Altima coupe. Definitely a niche product.

For that kind of money, most guys are going to be heading over the Porsche dealership.

 

Nissan f'ed up by not importing the R33 or the R34 so they are eating crow now with the new GTR, strictly imo of course.

 

Porsche sells around 6000 911s in the US per year. So it's not that bad considering the high costs for a Nissan, the high cost of maintenance/service/repairs and that it's not as widely known as a 911.

 

When I brought up the GTR, a former Nissan dealership manager told me, "Just get a one year old 911 Turbo for the same price."

 

...which is probably why he's a "former Nissan dealership manager".

 

It would be interesting to know what the import numbers were to really tell how they did, but I think it's another example of just being the "fastest" or most technically advanced doesn't sell cars, even those offering great performance at a lower(ish) cost.

 

I don't find those numbers too stunning....

Porsche only sold 1300 Caymans and 2100 Boxters...

And um... Porsche has a few years head start on them to say the least.

I'm not saying it's a 911 killer (or not any time soon for sure) but absent Nissan's projections, the number doesn't mean much.

 

That's strange, because I've seen lots of GTR's!

Chris

 

Maybe it's me, but I don't see the typical GTR buyer ever considering the 911 - two totally different animals.

I know my local Nissan dealer moved 3 this year (2010) - silver, red, and white. The buyers seem to be in their mid-late 30's (I met two of the three). Most 911 drivers in my are are in their 50's.

For me personally, although I was very excited to hear about the car being available in the US - the lack of a stick-shift option was a deal-breaker.

Erik

 

there was information out there about transmission failures due to using launch control and Nissan was not covering them. Just read in another car mag that the automated clutch action has been slowed to protect the trans and avoid these failures. I agree with the previous poster, how do you offer launch control and then not warrant the trans? why install it if you know it will break it? Poor decision making on Nissan's part. Also, GTRs are ugly.

 

Wow, I wasn't aware of that. That really is stupid - to offer something that will void the warranty?

Chris

 

I looked at getting one as I liked the car but did not want to get into the put a deposit and wait kind of thing. I think 877 cars is a good number in a depression. They would have sold 3000 of them in 2007.

 

I see the car as more of a Halo product meant to showcase Nissan's technical abilities and to give today's sentra/240sx driver something to aspire to. Someone comes to the dealer to see it and drives out in a new Sentra or 370z who wasn't even looking for a car..that's the job of cars like the GTR. 800 actually sounds like a decent amount sold. If i had to make a back of the envelope guess i'd have said they may have sold three or four hundred.

 

I would rather buy a used Porsche 911 Turbo or Ferrari 360 CS than a Nissan GTR for same money. For me, I really don't care about racing and rather have a fun exotic type car that looks amazing, sounds amazing and can go fast. After all, unless I live close to a track, I can only drive 90 mph before losing my license. Most of the thrill comes from 0-60 anyways.

 

in that case you should like the GT-R

 

replacing my 07 gt3 lease with 2012 gtr, hopefully in next few weeks. i have had 3 porsches and looking for something different.

despite being similar on paper, gtr has more in common with gt3/2 porsches than it does a turbo. turbo is a much 'softer' car in all respects than gtr.

im going to buy either an xke jag convertible or a lotus elise as a 2nd car with the money i would have spent on a porsche.

 

That's not the question. The question is, would a typical 911 driver ever consider and GT-R? ;-) I'd bet more 911 drivers would consider a new tech toy than new tech toy drivers would switch to a 911.

I'm in my mid 40s (but very tech savvy) and I'm looking for a dedicated track car and I'm looking at the GTR as well as well as the Evo and the STI lately. The odds I'd pick a Porsche as my next car toy are near zero. I loves the tech. I'd buy a 458 but for the quarter million.

As far as the hook goes, I would have agreed just a year ago... but my thinking has changed on this. Modern dual clutch trannys are soooo much faster than a human can shift it is not even funny.

(remember I said this and credit me later...) I think the in the next 5-7 years this will be like the autofocus debate in cameras. And the outcome will be the same. People will eventually admit the computer can shift faster than them (and yes better) and manual transmissions will be as common as manual focus lenses. Wait for it. ;-)

 

I would probably not consider a new 911 or a GT-R, but I have to admit the 2012 GT-R is sounding like one crazy machine, with some choice improvements.

Porsche has completely diluted my attention span with all of their versions, variants, and oddball naming. I can't keep track of which ones are the good ones, which ones are pedestrian, and which ones are last year's models.

 

For a track car, I will almost guarantee the GT-R will burn down the brakes almost instantly in the hands of a competent driver. I almost never see them at MotorSport Ranch and the one I drove was fast but very portly and I was killing the tires and brakes to go fast.

I see lots of 911 variants on track and I am sorry, but 3800 lbs is too fat to dance on track regularly.

Awesome street machine, though and I can see it as a vialbe competitor to just abouit anything. A bit ugly, but the view from behind the wheel is all that really matters.

 

I agree on every point especially the last one, that was cool. If I had $70+k burning a hole in my wallet and just had too have a GTR I would import an R33 and do the LHD conversion. I think Nissan shot themselves in the foot with the new GTR especially as previously mentioned not offering a 6-speed manual.

 

The Acura NSX only sold a couple hundred cars per year for the last 7 or 8 years. Before that it was 400 - 500, and only the first year had a large sales figure. That's how they planned it.

Nissan isn't trying to put a GT-R in everyone's garage. That's what the 370Z is for They're not trying to sell thousands of cars. In fact, one dumb salesman told me that the GT-R was "limited production" and that "they don't make it anymore."

The GT-R is their flagship supercar which comes in at base Porsche 911 price.

Of the folks locally that I know who own GT-R's, one also owns a 911 GT3 and a ZR1, another has a couple Lotus Esprit's and a deposit on a MP4-12C, and a third has an SLS AMG, 599, 430, a 911 turbo, and a second GT-R.

Y'all folks talking about how the R35 somehow inferior to the R33's and the R34's are silly IMO I'd take a ground-up dedicated supercar over the 300 horse coupe versions of a Skyline. Hell I drive a "Skyline" and it's definitely quick but it couldn't hold a candle to an R35.