Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    By William Maley •

    Rumorpile: Nissan GT-R's Future In Question

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    June 30, 2012

    From the "Wait, What?!" department comes a report from Inside Line that says the next generation GT-R hasn't been approved.

    A source reveals that Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn hasn't given the green light to begin work on the next GT-R. More worryingly, the source says that Ghosn might not give it go ahead at all.

    A possible reason as to why Ghosn might not give the green light is in this tidbit from the report,

    "Ghosn approved the original GT-R only after being assured that it would make money for the company even at low volumes. Since its introduction, GT-R sales in the United States have added up to just 5,914 units and they have slowed recently to just 583 this year."

    Most likely the GT-R isn't making enough profit to meet expectations. Part of that could come from the price increase that has happen since the GT-R was launched in 2008.

    • 2008: $69,850 (Base); $71,900 (Premium)
    • 2009: $76,840 (Base); $79,090 (Premium)
    • 2010: $80,790 (Base); $83,040 (Premium)
    • 2011: $84,060 (Premium)
    • 2012: $90,950 (Premium)
    • 2013: $96,820 (Premium)

    *2011 saw the base GT-R dropped*

    Yes, Nissan has been improving the GT-R every year or so (2013 model sees a increase of 15 for both HP and torque; 545 HP and 463 lb-ft of torque. 0-60 time of 2.7 seconds.), but in the crowded field of sports cars, having numbers like those isn't enough.

    A couple other items to take into consideration: in 2009 Ghosn was a champion of the GT-R project. Now, he is the champion of the Leaf EV, something that is way on the other side of the spectrum. Also, chief engineer of the GT-R Kazutoshi Mizuno, recently retired.

    Previously, rumors had the next generation GT-R to appear sometime in 2014. Horsepower was expected to be around 600 HP and possibly use a hybrid powertrain. Now, the GT-R is up in the air.

    Source: Inside Line

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    G. David Felt

    Does not surprise me, without a performance guy to champion a given car, the sales numbers do not support keeping a halo like this going. Plus the current GTR never really hit home to consumers the way the R34 or R35 did.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    G. David Felt

    Exactly...and while the car is hugely fast, it isn't anywhere near as reliable or easy to wrench on as a Corvette C6, it's largest competitor here.

    I think a lot of performance cars are going to go away....

    Yes, with the Green movement and the fact that you can get some pretty quick fun cars to drive with Turbo 4 or turbo 6 engines without having to take it to a racing level, I suspect over the next few years a number of low selling performance auto's will silently go away.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Drew Dowdell

    A friend of mine's brother owns a company that modifies GTRs into insanely fast machines. I visited the facility a few weeks ago and the sights there were simply awesome. They are getting 1,200 hp out of these engines. (if you read Jalopnik, they did a story on the company a few weeks ago also). they are moving to a new facility soon, and I may go out to do a story on them and their new space.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    G. David Felt

    A friend of mine's brother owns a company that modifies GTRs into insanely fast machines. I visited the facility a few weeks ago and the sights there were simply awesome. They are getting 1,200 hp out of these engines. (if you read Jalopnik, they did a story on the company a few weeks ago also). they are moving to a new facility soon, and I may go out to do a story on them and their new space.

    That would be cool to read and see with pictures of what they are doing. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×



  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • G. David Felt
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By G. David Felt · Posted

      Personally I think GM is too late to the Hybrid party and rather than spend and write off all the billions of dollars on their EVs that are actually selling well, they should have stayed the course and not followed Stupid Ford and Idiot47. GM has a 'handful of hybrids' coming - but are they the ones you want? I do not see GM actually doing well in this space as they are already too far behind.
    • trinacriabob
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By trinacriabob · Posted

      On a more positive note, travel related stuff ... A historic milestone was achieved by Cunard Line within the last week.  When she was built, Queen Mary 2 (QM2) was too big to transit the Panama Canal.  The same was true for other supersized passenger ships.  In the interim, new larger locks were engineered and put into service. https://travelweekly.com.au/queen-mary-2s-first-transit-through-panama-canal-on-way-to-australia/ I saw the QM2 enter San Francisco Bay in 2007 because I was living out West.  It came in on a Sunday and I spent the weekend south of the city and near SFO.  I went there in a rented 2007 Monte Carlo costing less than $25 a day and stayed at one of the cheap chain hotels near SFO costing about $50 a night, which was ridiculously cheap even then. The ship went around South America and sailed northward up the Pacific.  As such, it's not a trip they would be making too often with the QM2. QM2 transited the Panama Canal for the first time just days ago.  She is headed to Los Angeles AND San Francisco.  To clarify the article's headline, Australia is just its next leg - this is the full world cruise.  She was last in Los Angeles in 2006 when she saluted her namesake Queen Mary and last in San Francisco in 2007 and seeing the passage under the Golden Gate Bridge was unforgettable.  These were the only visits to these ports.  With the new Panama Canal locks, her visiting the North Pacific Ocean and its major ports is much more likely to be on future world voyages. In the Panama Canal transit, the nail biter was supposedly going under the Bridge of the Americas - the one with the curved top.  I saw this YouTube with passengers cheering and motorists up above honking. I blame my parents for this!  They took us across the Atlantic a time or two too many when we were kids and this fascination began.
    • oldshurst442
      Airplanes

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

    • oldshurst442
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

      RIP
    • ccap41
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By ccap41 · Posted

      WTF kind of article is this? Piss-poor grammar and sentences. "By the time the odometer ticked past that 160,000 kilometre mark, equivalent to 160,000 kilometres, 99,000, the pack still retained over 90 percent of its original net capacity." Then it jumps to 91% remaining capacity somehow...? And when jumping to 91% capacity remaining, I don't think they did any math at all. See below for a paragraph that shouldn't be made as evidence of anything. As an engineer, this kind of "facts" should infuriate you.  "Battery health statistics can sound abstract until you translate them into the range figure you see on your dashboard. In this case, the Volkswagen ID. 3 Pro S started life with a usable pack of 77 kWh, and independent testing recorded an initial real world range of 77 k and 272 miles on a full charge. After the long term trial, the car still had 91% of its battery capacity, a figure that aligns with separate reporting that the Volkswagen ID 3 retained 91% battery capacity in a 160,000 kilometre test. In practice, that meant the car lost only around eight miles of usable range, a change small enough that you would struggle to notice in daily driving." 272 x .09 = 24.5 miles. Theoretically losing 9% would lose the owner about 25 miles of range, not 8 miles. It is now a 248-mile range EV.  This looks like some garbage AI-generated article.  Just for the record, I'm not saying that EVs don't have good battery management and degradation. I'm just saying this article was an embarrassing example to stand by.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search