Why did Nissan make the GT-R so fat?

Nissan is king of fat. Thank the early 2000's Altima, the original fat car. stupid useless curve were made popular by this horrid design. This was where it all went so, so wrong.

Just compare that to the previous gen? It looks all tucked in, and tight. Nimble.

I probably worded it incorrectly, but basically Nissan was saying we want the car to have 300lb of downforce (as an example) in the front, but they cant do that with a spoiler or splitter and have it be road legal, so they engineered it so that the front is just 300lb heavier
A car that is lighter but has a lot of horsepower would not be able to grip as effectively
That's their claim anyways, I dont really agree with them

Does anyone have that image of the kid crying because the gtr is slower than the z06?
asking for science

You're an idiot. The tyres don't care if you have 3000 lbs of car pushing them into the road or 2600 lbs of car and 400 lbs of aero downforce pushing them into the road. The problem is you can't generate 400 lbs of downforce at a standstill or at any reasonable speeds without resorting to illegal (or impossible to make legal) body modifications and/or having a car so low to the ground it would be impossible to drive on anything but the smoothest of racetracks.

Weight is pure waste if all you care about is grip.

Weight generated by air interacting with the shape of the vehicle, not constantly anchoring the thing down even when you don't want it to.

Excess weight is not some magical all-speed downforce. It will have negative effects on all aspects of handling. Strip down a GT-R and SURPRISE, it performs better.

are you fucking autistic

>what are braking distances
>what is acceleration

The thing is already AWD, it doesn't need pigfat to put power down.

>Weight is pure waste if all you care about is grip.
>he thinks he knows better than a team of nissan's best motorsport engineers
>DURRR WEIGHT IS BAD
Not everything has to be a carbon fiber gokart.

Holy fuck you are a absolute retard
Actually yes it DOES because if it didnt have the weight it would be extremely twitchy and unstable due to the lack of downforce because muh regulations.

If it would be twitchy then what are they doing with all of those computers in it?

Americans are to blame for fat and overly curvy cars, not necessarily Nissan.

For example, this is a 1999 Nissan family sedan made in Japan.

Dude, have you never seen an R32 GT-R in person? It looks enormous next to an NSX. These cars were never that small. Especially the R33/R34. They were realistically like 3300-3500 pounds.

If you actually know anything about cars you'll know that the problem with weight is that it transfers while downforce loads tires evenly. So it overwhelms the outside tires and then you're fucked. The only case where this doesn't happen is drag racing.

Nissan just wanted to justify the fact that they didn't want to drop massive money on weight saving and downforce while simultaneously increasing the price by ~50k USD over the course of 10 years. The weight is not an advantage at all. If they dropped 800 pounds from the car it would be much faster.

The R32 GT-R was the lightest but the chassis is floppy and weight distribution is sad.

And for those that really think the R34 was much faster than the R33 take a look at this video: youtube.com/watch?v=jMaqM00ANjM

its really not that big in person. The rx7 looks huge in photos and is tiny in real life.

T H I C C

H

I

C

C

nanny state safety regs and upselling it to normies who might be scared to drive it otherwise.

Also its why it doesnt come with a manual option.

Its a good all rounder

Did you really just compare an R32 to an NSX? Those things were designed to look like supercars such as a Ferrari or Lambo. The R32 is like a 2-door econobox, but it's still very small.

I don't know man, it's pretty fucking big. It's basically as long as my sedan. But yeah, the RX-7 FD is a very small car in person, it helps that it's incredibly low too.

>Why did Nissan make the GT-R so fat?
millennial buzzwords

What kind of sedan? I mean the gtr was always big. Its pretty much a midsized. Its larger than the new civic sedan but smaller than an accord.

I just got some stats from my car and the GT-R:

My car
>Length 4,705 mm (185.2 in)
>Width 1,725 mm (67.9 in)
>Height 1,375 mm (54.1 in)

GT-R
>Length 2009–2010: 183.3 in (4,656 mm), 2011 – present: 183.9 in (4,671 mm)
>Width 2009–2010 & 2013–: 74.6 in (1,895 mm), 2011–12: 74.9 in (1,902 mm)
>Height 2009–2010 & 2013–: 53.9 in (1,369 mm), 2011–12: 54.0 in (1,372 mm)

Like, come on. That is ridiculous, just how much space do you need for a 2-door sports car?

It's literally the size of a Prelude Type SH. It was fully a foot longer than the Civic of the same era and 4 inches wider. Relative to the super pigfat cars of today yeah sure compact but for the time it was hardly a small car.

I've seen an R35 GT-R in person. It's pretty damn big. Easily the size of a mid-size sedan.

I'm not following. Your car is larger than the gtr in length. Gtr is wider and about the same height. Its a coupe basically. I'm not following your point. The gtr was never a small car.

...

Exactly, that's why I'm asking why they made it so fat. And I'm stating the sizes because you said that it's not that big in person, but I just showed you that it is in fact big because it, a sports coupe, is about the same size of my family sedan.

The new GT-R was really foreshadowing what to expect from other classic loved cars that got a "modern" redesign.

lol if you think that's ridiculous you should check out the new mustangs dimensions

188 L x 75 W x 54-55 H

what a joke

corvette

user both the NSX and FD are far smaller than they look. They're supercars, whereas the R32 is still at its core a coupe version of what was at the time considered a midsize sedan.

It isn't big in person. The numbers you posted are like new compact sedan sized. Its not a "sports" car like the nsx or rx7. Its essentially a sports coupe .

Your talking like 100mm difference in width is alot. It really isnt. Its 100mm its literally nothing.

user, you've literally just repeated what I said. You've basically made a post that is agreeing with everything that I said, but it seems like you think I've got a different opinion than of what you've just said.

Also everyone is comparing two different classes of cars

Wow I had no idea nsxs were that small, and I have seen many nsxs in my lifetime

Yeah they definitely are not big at all.

Yes. But the point is that the GT-R has always been a GT car that is also good on track. It was never a small car because it started life as a GT car.

...

the gt-r is hardly a gt car. Its literally a sport coupe. Gt cars are like Bentley/ rolls and shit

>GTR
>Built to race JTCC
How is it not a GT car if it's sole existence was to rek the competition in GT races?

Its hard to explain. The gt-r to me has always been the epitome of import tuner cars. I don't see them on the same level as gt cars although I'm sure they would do well/ have done well.

Somehow, something tells me you call them petrol and tyres...

No just tires and gas.

If you look at the lower trims like the GTS you'll see that they were basically just Nissan's idea of a GT car. The Skyline GT-Rs were actually pretty comfortable for long distance drives if you kept the suspension stock. The R32 GT-R is a very soft car, 2.3 kg/mm springs out of the box.

Had no idea. I'm from the U.S we only got the new one. People import them but i'm not really about to go with that long process.

Just look at the G35, G37, Q50, and Q60. That was what the lower trims were like. Kind of sporty, but actually pretty comfy cars. You could definitely drive one across the country without a ton of trouble.

The R35 GT-R is super stiff because the car is so goddamn heavy. They had to make it super stiff to make it handle.

I always liked the fact the GTR was a souped up family car with steroids. The new GTR is a completely separate sports car built from the ground up to be a performer. While its performance on the track increased because of this, I miss the old "everyday hero" style of the old GTRs sharing the same DNA as a family car

Basically I'd do anything to see a Q50 but with a manual gearbox, non-computer controlled steering, and 2 doors. Yeah it might be inferior to the current GTR, but i like the body style and size of the Q50 more

Nope don't trust these bigots in this thread

Downforce is massless weight. Adding weight from actual mass will just increase the inertia of a car and stop it from turning properly. Inertia literally means a resisting Force. Inertia is an inherent force of mass. More mass equals more inertia. Something with no mass has no inertia and can move at the speed light, while also being able to change direction instantly.

Even with all the weight, it still set the Nurboburgring record.

Don't kid yourself, the R35 GT-R is still based on a similar platform. Just because they called it PM vs FM doesn't mean that they didn't start with a G35 coupe.

The Q50/Q60 done right would've been a beautiful car. 6 speed manual, steering that isn't utter garbage, etc... would've been a lot of fun with the VR30DDTT.

The Nismo GT-R requires the N Attack Pack to actually reach the 7:08 time. The actual factory Nismo GT-R doesn't have nearly as good suspension and it's missing a bunch of extra carbon fiber pieces.

The Eau Rouge concept looked promising. Too bad they scrapped that...

It was dumb because there was no real need to make an R35 sedan. They could've, but the transmission packaging is super impractical. There's a reason why the R33 GT-R has usable back seats (and the R33 GT-R Autech 4 door is a thing) but the R35 GT-R has unusable back seats despite being massive.

Infiniti should work on making their production cars actually decent instead of cool concepts that will never make it to production.

...

>Not liking thicc
Veeky Forums gay

Lots of cars seem to be a lot bigger than they really are, strange

someone get this deko poster out of here

ive seen ge tee aar next to modern 911 and it looks fucking huge desu, even tho its was baby bearing hipped 911

Yeah it's huge compared to a 996. 991 is less ridiculous but still bigger I think.

If the R36 looks anything like the 2020 VGT, it may yet be saved

Is good bait, ya?

It will also be a two seat mid engine car at that point. Not much of a GT car.

weight is actually dentrimental to downforce, because the more the car weights, the more downforce it needs and the harder the tires have to cope.

For it's time it was fat.

R32 with C7 for those of you that have never seen one.

Either the R32 is small or the C7 is F A T

The Corvette is just wide.

The thing with the Skylines that people need to understand is that they came in two variants: a 4-door econobox, and a 2-door econobox. They also happened to make a very fast version of the 2-door called the GT-R.

When you compare the Skyline to the Silvia, you'll see that the Skyline, even the 2-door version, isn't as wide or as low as the Silvia is even though they're both made by Nissan.

The Silvia was marketed as a sports car, and the Skyline as a GT car. The Skyline GT-R isn't a "real" sports car, it's just fast.

>what's more likely to go up - a 2000lb car or a 3000lb car?
>what is more likely to stay on the ground
>what is weight even?

Grip.

>The Skyline GT-R isn't a "real" sports car, it's just fast.

...

It's not strictly a sports car. It is a GT car that is also a great base for a race car. The Skyline GT-R N1 variants were proof of this.

But the RX7 was undoubtedly better in tight touges. That's what sets sports cars and GT-R apart. GT-R is good for high speed courses, sports cars are good for low speed tight courses.

If people take issue with a 996 TT being a supercar, then the NSX and FDs are definitely not supercars. They are small and light though.

Only part you can't get is the manual. Normal rack is $1000 less than the electronic steering.

>I'm trying to fish and have no understanding of babi physics the post.

for the same reason as most car manufacturers: lightweight materials aren't cheap, and lightweight construction isn't practical (tall and wide sills, removing sound insulation, removing climate control, removing entertainment system, replacing airbags with racing harnesses, etc.)

Also it's meant to carry four adults and their luggage, although there is some lack of space efficiency since car on the left in this picture can do the same.

Man, it makes me wonder how different things would've been if Toyota made a JEE TEE ARU version of the Camry. The Chaser was basically an RWD Camry with a 2JZ, maybe they could've went further.

Downforce is just weight. I don't know what secret sauce you think your rear airfoil is adding but it's just more downward force proportional to your speed.

to make it even more humiliating

It's weight that has no inertia and isn't subject to weight transfer.

Can you make a 4000 pound block of steel behave the same way? Please do a detailed explanation if you can make it happen and hold off on patenting it for a few days.

At least its justified because awd

Now try to justify the Supra

That also explains the modern Z cars

Yeah, but the normal rack supposedly still sucks dick I thought?

Supra was heavy because it was GT car and also massive to try push the engine back while keeping 2+2 configuration and a decent size trunk.

The extra hardware to enable AWD is not crazy heavy. Maybe another 150 pounds.

You're right, but to say that you need even more downforce to fight weight is retarded. You're going to get just as much traction from physical weight over the powered wheels.

>Supra was heavy because it was GT

Literally in the name
>GT-R

Mitsubishi also had the GTO, with the fattest version being awd.

Z32 was also technically a GT car, no?

Right, but weight is only an advantage in a straight line. You can overcome weight with more power. But in a turn there's no real mitigation for inertia.

Mizuno's explanation for why the R35 is heavy is utter shit. It's an engineering manager bullshitting an explanation that he thinks people will overlook. Just look at Mine's or other serious tuners. The first thing they do is weight reduction to the tune of ~3500 lbs fully loaded. It turns out that if you replace all the body work with dry carbon that's right around where the R35 ends up. That's when the R35 really starts to perform while not beating the shit out of the driver because you don't need absurd spring rates and damper settings to fight weight transfer as badly.

Yes, I'm aware that GT cars are heavy. I never claimed the GT-R was a light car. It was always big and pretty heavy for its time. But it made up for it with raw power and a solid AWD system that let it pull out of corners like nothing else. But there's no doubt that if it was lighter, it would get into corners faster.

The designer thought that weight makes a car have more grip.

Reality is mass is detrimental to agility because of inertia

However, large mass can make a car more stable simply because small forces don't affect the GTR as much, so it's a great touring car though there are much better ways to do this, like stretching the wheel base or using a rear drag wing.

The honest answer is that Nissan couldn't afford luxury materials during that period and probably told the head designer to make this car under $X.

R32 GTR weighs a little less than a z31 ZX and an A70 Supra, given that it's 4wd this is the opposite of fat even if it's not skinny.

It's super floppy as a result. The R34 is like 400 pounds heavier.

Have you actually driven any of the skylines? They literally are the opposite of "floppy"

Yes, I've driven an R33 GT-R. Are we really going to debate this? The R32 GT-R chassis absolutely can use reinforcement, which is why the R33 is 150% stiffer than the R32 GT-R.

The R34 GT-R is 100% stiffer than the R33 GT-R.

The R35 is way stiffer than any of the second generation GT-Rs. That's part of the reason why it's two fucking tons.

One of the big packages that Nismo provides for the second generation GT-Rs is chassis reinforcement and it definitely transforms the feel of the car. That's why they took apart a bunch of R34s and carefully replaced entire sections of the frame with carbon fiber for the Z-Tune.

the GT-R isnt thicc it doesnt even have fender flares
its just a brick

I've never seen Veeky Forums get in such an earnest tizzy as it does when you mention "weight" or "fat."

It would seem is right. Anything that's not a carbon fiber go kart and is small enough to fit in your pocket isn't a "real car."