Audi R8 or Nissan GT-R?

[scathing]

but there is absolutely nothing to me in driving more satisfying then nailing 3 perfect heel-toe downshifts in a row going into a corner.

Try beating someone some day.

You'll find either pulling away from someone, or checking the leaderboard at a Time Attack circuit day / AutoX and finding yourself near the top, also has a certain satisfaction.

 

[Suedschleife]

The R8 has a passive AWD system with a viscous LSD connecting the front and rear wheels. It does a 40:60 F:R split unless there's wheelspin. If wheelspin does come up, the viscous LSD eventually shifts power to the front when the fluid hardens up due to the speed differential. I'm not sure what kind of fluid they use in the centre diff, but if its anything like the rear diff in my car its going to be really slow to react...

40:60 F:R is the split for most current Audi quaddro cars yes, but afaik the R8 has 15:85 default up to 35:65 during tire slip.

 

[Alex K]

Money not being an issue and all, if I had to pick which one I'd own? Audi R8.
Mind you, I haven't driven either of them, but I have this funny feeling that if I did, I'd still ultimately pick the Audi. I think it looks better, inside and out, and I personally prefer a manual gearbox.
I'd love to take a GT-R out for a spin. I think it'd be fantastic and fun, but I think that I'd enjoy owning an R8 over a GT-R.

 

[thedguy]

The R8 has a passive AWD system with a viscous LSD connecting the front and rear wheels. It does a 40:60 F:R split unless there's wheelspin. If wheelspin does come up, the viscous LSD eventually shifts power to the front when the fluid hardens up due to the speed differential. I'm not sure what kind of fluid they use in the centre diff, but if its anything like the rear diff in my car its going to be really slow to react.

Audi has never put a viscous differential in anything with a Quattro badge. Audi insists upon using Torsen diffs where they don't put manual locking units. The exception is the Haldex system they put in the TT/A3/S3 (or anything else with a transverse engine).

Torsen diffs are far from slow to react, they don't even need wheel spin to react. These units don't work on speed at all but torque.

edit: I should really update my sources, I was wrong, see post #153.

 

[rskrobot]

In regards to the soul/passion argument, I have had some time to think about it and have re-read everyone's posts.
While I do think both of those words are terribly overused, I do think they have real meaning in the proper context. When you are driving a car and can take a sharp corner at speed, when you go to pass a lane hogger and realize that you have a split second to make it and do, or when you are out on a driving holiday then car becomes more than the mechanical bits it is put together with, to me that is soul.
Without having driven either and ignoring the specs for both, when I see myself driving the R8, I feel more stuck-up. I wouldn't get that excited feeling (not like that French racing bloke) everytime I walk out to take it for a spin as I would in the GT-R. That to me is passion.

 

[prizrak]

The R8 has a passive AWD system with a viscous LSD connecting the front and rear wheels. It does a 40:60 F:R split unless there's wheelspin. If wheelspin does come up, the viscous LSD eventually shifts power to the front when the fluid hardens up due to the speed differential. I'm not sure what kind of fluid they use in the centre diff, but if its anything like the rear diff in my car its going to be really slow to react.

The GT-R has an active AWD system that runs the car inThe R33 was pig ugly, heavy, and understeered. Its reasonably fun to drive, but that's because its so devastatingly quick for its age, not because it felt like an extension of your body like an Elise (or even an MX5) does. Those cars are like a second skin. The GT-R is like wearing powered battle armour.

The GT-R was always about winning races. That's why Nissan made such a big deal about the GT-R winning all those races when it was first launched on the official web site, and why every rabid GT-R fan inevitably brings up how it was banned from Australian Group A racing because it was too quick back in the early 90's.

As for "easily tuned", the car was a homologation special for racing. Its easy to screw power out of a racing engine when its engineers are forced to detune it to 280hp to be road legal. And its easy to replace your bolt-on road-going suspension setup when the overall geometry has already been set up with motorsport in mind.

You're looking at it the wrong way around. Nissan didn't make it easily tunable for car enthusiasts. Nissan built a race car in the R32 and developed it through the R33 and R34, and made it road legal and reasonably usable. The fact that electronic controls of suitable granularity weren't available at the time, permitting the platform to be returned from its neutered state, is a byproduct.


The R35 is no different (hence the active handling, the active drivetrain has been around since 1989), but due to its wider market Nissan's had to take steps to preserve its bottom line and the car's reputation (hence trying to stop back yard modifiers from blowing them up and giving them a misfounded image of unreliability).

And, really, since the controls are software based they will be bypassed. As I said before, other manufacturers have tried and failed to restrict modifications by ECU tuning. RWD mode under normal conditions to preserve steering feel, cut down on parastic loss from the drivetrain, and provide even wear on the tyres. If wheelspin is detected by the electronics, it starts shifting power to the front using a hydraulically actuated pump. With modern computing power and pumps, it should react a lot quicker.

The R8's AWD system is a Reliant Robin to the GT-R's Space Shuttle.

Ummm dude, do you know ANYTHING about Audi? The Audi Quattro consists of a TORSEN center diff and electronically controlled open diffs at both ends. It works exactly like the GT-R's ATESSA system with the only difference being that GT-R does a 10/90 split under normal conditions where's Audi generally runs 50/50. FYI the R8 uses a 30:70 split (Top Gear R8 review), the RS4 uses a 40:60 split.

The R33 was pig ugly, heavy, and understeered. Its reasonably fun to drive, but that's because its so devastatingly quick for its age, not because it felt like an extension of your body like an Elise (or even an MX5) does. Those cars are like a second skin. The GT-R is like wearing powered battle armour.

The GT-R was always about winning races. That's why Nissan made such a big deal about the GT-R winning all those races when it was first launched on the official web site, and why every rabid GT-R fan inevitably brings up how it was banned from Australian Group A racing because it was too quick back in the early 90's.

As for "easily tuned", the car was a homologation special for racing. Its easy to screw power out of a racing engine when its engineers are forced to detune it to 280hp to be road legal. And its easy to replace your bolt-on road-going suspension setup when the overall geometry has already been set up with motorsport in mind.

You're looking at it the wrong way around. Nissan didn't make it easily tunable for car enthusiasts. Nissan built a race car in the R32 and developed it through the R33 and R34, and made it road legal and reasonably usable. The fact that electronic controls of suitable granularity weren't available at the time, permitting the platform to be returned from its neutered state, is a byproduct.


The R35 is no different (hence the active handling, the active drivetrain has been around since 1989), but due to its wider market Nissan's had to take steps to preserve its bottom line and the car's reputation (hence trying to stop back yard modifiers from blowing them up and giving them a misfounded image of unreliability).

And, really, since the controls are software based they will be bypassed. As I said before, other manufacturers have tried and failed to restrict modifications by ECU tuning.

Granted I prefer the R34 look to all other GT-R's, however 33 was pretty damn far from ugly. As far as weight goes the R33 is 1529kg vs 1750kg of the R35. As far as bypassing ECU restrictions goes, yes it is possible you can just put a different ECU on. However the thing that made the early GT-R's such huge sellers was the ability to tune it to destroy just about anything else you are likely to see on the road. With the new GT-R it makes it much more difficult to tune and hence takes away from the enthusiast market. Yes I know that car is already fast but there are plenty of 1000+HP R34's out there making the 450 (not sure if it's exact number)HP R35 is somewhat lacking. Not to mention the 34 is so much better looking.

 

[scathing]

Ummm dude, do you know ANYTHING about Audi? The Audi Quattro consists of a TORSEN center diff and electronically controlled open diffs at both ends. It works exactly like the GT-R's ATESSA system with the only difference being that GT-R does a 10/90 split under normal conditions where's Audi generally runs 50/50. FYI the R8 uses a 30:70 split (Top Gear R8 review), the RS4 uses a 40:60 split.

All AWD GT-Rs have a 0:100 torque split if there's no wheelspin.

As for Audi, I was a bit surprised to see "viscous coupling" when I Googled for the R8 (I was looking for the torque split data at the time). As for Top Gear saying its a 30:70 split, I've seen figures quoted from 35:65 to to 40:60 for the R8. Top Gear isn't always accurate.

Granted I prefer the R34 look to all other GT-R's, however 33 was pretty damn far from ugly.

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the R33 looks a late 90's / early noughties Mitsubishi Galant in some situations (especially when all you can see is the corner indicator and the front wheelarch, its even worse with 2WD R33s as their stock 5 spoke wheels look almost identical to the Galant wheels).

It might be a bit different for me since I see R33s everywhere, but my visual preference has always been R32, R34, KPGC10, and the R33 dead last when it comes to Skyline GT-Rs.

Yes I know that car is already fast but there are plenty of 1000+HP R34's out there making the 450 (not sure if it's exact number)HP R35 is somewhat lacking.

\

Now that's not fair.

None of those 1000hp GT-Rs are anywhere near factory tune, and there's no way those cars are emissions legal for their year of manufacture, let alone qualifying as an ultra-low emissions vehicle like the R35 GT-R does.

You can't expect Nissan to turn out a road car to compete with people who have no concern when it comes to tractability or road legality.

As I said, the new restrictions won't stop people from modifying...its just taking longer for those mods to come out. The tuners need to learn their way around this engine, and part of that is defeating the engine management.

One of the first thing Ford XR6 Turbo tuners do is modify the ECU, as the car uses two MAP sensors to detect if someone's trying to intercept the reading to adjust A/F (which no-one knew about at first, defeating most interceptor ECU tuners) and brings in a fuel cut if the boost exceeds standard levels (with small margins of error). It just took Ford tuners longer, but if you look at the XR6 Turbo aftermarket the range is huge as the car is very popular as a tuning base.

The RB26DETT has been around since 1989 and so its tuning secrets are a well known and so "easy" these days. But when the were first released, its not like the aftermarket knew about the oil starvation problems due to the unbaffled sump, that the ceramic turbochargers were prone to failure after hard use, and all the myriad of problems the engine has. They're not software restrictions, they're hardware restrictions.


Even the Z-Tune was held to 500hp as Nismo couldn't get the car to make any more power while achieving emissions regulations and keeping it drivable. The "cooking model" R35 is as quick on the track as a hand-built, hard tuned, but completely road legal R34.....which speaks volumes about how good the new R35 is.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The R8 looks better every time I see it, while the GT-R looks uglier every time I see it. Easy choice.

 

[LP]

The R8 looks better every time I see it, while the GT-R looks uglier every time I see it. Easy choice.

You just took the words right out of my mouth. The R8 looks great from all angles. The GT-R ONLY looks good from the back IMO.

I even made a wallpaper with the back end of that car, but given a choice between the R8 and the nissan it would definitely be the R8. Easy choice.

 

[prizrak]

All AWD GT-Rs have a 0:100 torque split if there's no wheelspin.

As for Audi, I was a bit surprised to see "viscous coupling" when I Googled for the R8 (I was looking for the torque split data at the time). As for Top Gear saying its a 30:70 split, I've seen figures quoted from 35:65 to to 40:60 for the R8. Top Gear isn't always accurate.

My apologies, I was reading up on the V12 TDI version of the R8 and they also mentioned viscous coupling. This doesn't seem right, why would they go backwards????

 

[thedguy]

My apologies, I was reading up on the V12 TDI version of the R8 and they also mentioned viscous coupling. This doesn't seem right, why would they go backwards????

Source on that? Audi doesn't like viscous couplings, I'd wager they'd rather invest in a fully computer controlled clutch system like the GT-R before going to a viscous coupling.

edit: oh wait, they already have, with the haldex system in the TT/a3/s3.

 

[prizrak]

Source on that? Audi doesn't like viscous couplings, I'd wager they'd rather invest in a fully computer controlled clutch system like the GT-R before going to a viscous coupling.

edit: oh wait, they already have, with the haldex system in the TT/a3/s3.

I couldn't find the actual article I was reading but here is a different one that corroborates it. http://www.leftlanenews.com/audi-r8.html

 

[thedguy]

hmmm my trusty source (I love the "in depth" articles on worldcarfans) even says it's a viscous coupling. Winding Road provides some possible answers, though I don't trust it based on what they say about viscous couplings:

http://www.windingroad.com/features-page/2007-audi-r8/

That 15/85 split is a key to the brilliant rear-wheel-driving feel of this Audi versus all other Audis. Maximum redistribution of torque is 30/70 percent and we can finally carve out all manner of controlled oversteer lines with these numbers.

The Torsen differential used on other Audi Quattros, including the Le Mans Quattro concept car, changes here to a lighter weight and quicker-acting viscous coupling as originally used on the Gallardo. This was necessary because the usual Torsen diff finds it hard to wrangle such fast-revving torque.

I've also read the tire sizes are significantly different from front to back (same rim size but different tire diameter). This creates a different torque split on it's own, along with forcing the viscous coupling to constantly work (trick porsche did on the 959), thats the only reason why it could be "quicker acting" than a torsen.

See children, this is why you don't trust wikipedia, especially out of date articles.

Scathing, my apologies, I was wrong on that.

 

[prizrak]

hmmm my trusty source (I love the "in depth" articles on worldcarfans) even says it's a viscous coupling. Winding Road provides some possible answers, though I don't trust it based on what they say about viscous couplings:

http://www.windingroad.com/features-page/2007-audi-r8/



I've also read the tire sizes are significantly different from front to back (same rim size but different tire diameter). This creates a different torque split on it's own, along with forcing the viscous coupling to constantly work (trick porsche did on the 959), thats the only reason why it could be "quicker acting" than a torsen.

See children, this is why you don't trust wikipedia, especially out of date articles.

Scathing, my apologies, I was wrong on that.

Well in this particular case Wiki didn't have any R8 info whatsoever. Not sure how much I believe this

This was necessary because the usual Torsen diff finds it hard to wrangle such fast-revving torque.

though. The RS4 uses a TORSEN middle diff and it has the same exact V8 as the R8. The Le Mans racers are also far from slow revving I would suspect )))

 

[thedguy]

though. The RS4 uses a TORSEN middle diff and it has the same exact V8 as the R8. The Le Mans racers are also far from slow revving I would suspect )))

The RS4 carries more weight, it's going to accelerate slower. I honestly think the excuse is BS. It's likely more a problem with torsens other slight design flaw... it can't go beyond 40:60 static Torque bias.

 

[prizrak]

The RS4 carries more weight, it's going to accelerate slower. I honestly think the excuse is BS. It's likely more a problem with torsens other slight design flaw... it can't go beyond 40:60 static Torque bias.

Now I'm quite disappointed in the R8. I have an irrational dislike for viscous diffs.

 

[Interrobang]

Regardless of which is the faster or a better car, or which is a "real" super car, which would you get if it were your own money?[...]

... R8. But given the minimum of 104000 Euro the Audi costs, I?d rather have a loaded 911 Carrera S ... and still, given the 70000 Us-$ the GT-R costs, I?d rather have something else. It might be a sensational Car, but right now it just leaves me totally cold. That might change ... but for now, I wouldn?t have the GT-R at all ...

 

[vikiradTG2007]

Neither.

This is more driver-focused than both of the others. Granted, it does cost more, but it should offer a better experience. And that Porsche flat-six shout... (Don't really like the Audi V8, and the Nissan V6 turbo is too muted from the inside)

 

[Redliner]

Am I the only one that doesn't like when a choice between two cars gets answers like "Neither. I'd rather get a yadayada..."? In my opinion, the point is to explain why you would choose one between those two cars. Alternatives to them should be given in the threads where each car is being discussed.

 

[Interrobang]

Am I the only one that doesn't like when a choice between two cars gets answers like "Neither. I'd rather get a yadayada..."? In my opinion, the point is to explain why you would choose one between those two cars. Alternatives to them should be given in the threads where each car is being discussed.

The World?s not black and white, and this is not some Army where you?re only allowed to answer Yes oder No (Staff sargent). This is a Platform for Discussion (or at least I tend to think of it as such) ... just choosing A or B without being allowed to bring in alternatives ... that?s just narrowminded.