Jump to content

Talk:Nissan GT-R

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ANTTONNY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan GT-R LM NISMO at 2015 24 Hours of Le Mans

[edit]

Hey, guys. The Nissan will return in 2015 Le Mans. The name of LMP1-H will be debut as the "Nissan GT-R LM NISMO". This will successed the R391? User:Superstarsqx — Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be included that the GT-R is NOT part of the Skyline family?

[edit]

There are quite a lot of people who still think the new GT-R carries the Skyline name. Car & Driver falsely call it a Skyline GT-R, I think it is turning into a common misconception of it being a Skyline, when it really isn't. Yes, we know it has something to do with it's predecessor, the Skyline GT-R. Gouryella (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that back that statement up? What would your proposed rewrite/addition be? I think the article states it pretty clearly that it is not a Skyline, even though there is no source for that statement. Matty (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article clearly states this vehicle not being called a Skyline. Would be interested in seeing what proposed changes you'd like to make still. roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


R32, R33, R34, R35!!!! Kind of obvious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.191.146 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 magazine tests

[edit]

In the July 2009 issue of sport auto the GTR ran a Nürburgring 7:38 laptime. That same month in an issue of Autobild the GTR outpaced the C6 ZR1 by 19 ms around the Contidrom test track.

can someone find sources online these are German magazines and I'm not sure if the articles are online yet? 69.65.224.246 (talk)

According to the reference provided in the article, they have not updated the webpage - it still says Von Sauma made a 7:50 lap around the ring.Hj108 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the issue of Sport Auto magazine referred to above and can confirm the 7:38 lap time of the Ring driven by Horst Von Sauma.Hj108 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Predessor???

[edit]

If it is not part of the skyline family then why its it predecessor the Skyline GT-R? --203.211.70.193 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Nissan Skyline and Nissan GT-R has been separated.

[edit]

In 2002, the GT-R has been removed from Skyline range and is separated in 2007, because Nissan wants the Skylines to run on a luxury-car style, while the GT-R has moved to its own performance line.

la nissan gtr a 480 ch.elle peut aller jusqu'a 340 kmh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.4.199 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eey man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.191.122 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Nissan GTR facelift ?

[edit]

Paris Salon ... (Djole93bg (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

SuperGT engine & transmission choice

[edit]

Sonsofthepatriots & 70.116.78.36 claim that Nissan did not select the twinturbo V6 VR38DETT & DCT transmission because of reliability issues, even citing the class-action lawsuit that resulted from inappropriately used road cars. This is pure conjecture and NOT based on facts. The SuperGT class in which the GT500 race version of the GTR competes does not require the production of homologation versions of the competing cars and the vehicles that take part are far removed from any production version (to keep costs down that are associated with homologation). Indeed, the 2010 GT500 category winner, the Honda HSV-010 GT, does not even exist as a roadcar. Could one therefore conclude that any road-going Honda's engine & transmission is unreliable? Unsurprisingly, the Honda HSV-010 GT sports a 3.4 litre V8 engine with a sequential transmission just as most other competitors in that category as is dictated by regulations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_HSV-010_GT

The DCT transmission's reliability was the bone of contention of the class-action lawsuit and used by the aforementioned to argue that this was the reason for Nissan selecting a sequential gearbox. Again, nothing could be further from the truth as it was used as weight saving measure. Moreover, most manufacturers that offer DCT transmissions on their road cars do not use these for their race-versions. A good example would be Porsche's 911 and it's racing going versions which all use sequential gearboxes.

--O-star1 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tense changes

[edit]

Made a minor change under the "Facelifted GT-R" section as it was still written in the past tense.


```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by BadPlatypus (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R35 is produced till at least 2016.

[edit]

I write in by machine translation. Kazutoshi Mizuno, the chief engineer of GT-R has said that he will produce R35 five more years. This information is described by the Japanese motor magazine. I delete description "being replaced in 2013." . Mizuno's remark is here. GT-R　ニュルブルクリンク24ｈ参戦決定, ニュル24時間　水野和敏が率いるGT-R開発チームが参戦 --58.93.130.4 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kickdown in manual mode?

[edit]

I have a love/hate relationship with the DSG from Audi/VW/Porsche. Love because they switch gears faster and without disturbing the balance of the car. Hate because I'm unable to avoid kickdown on full throttle in manual mode. And I hate that an upshift command by the driver is ignored on full throttle in manual mode. People keep telling me that I should disthinguish between full throttle with kickdown and full throttle without kickdown but I'm unable and quite unwilling to do so, since I consider this an unnecessary ambiguity. How does the GTR behave in this point of view?

If the GTR does behave different or not I think this should be mentioned here!


Aftermarket tuning-part sensationalist

[edit]

Parts of this section seems very sensational and full of PR, as if written by a journalist and/or marketer. Recurring words as "sensational", "astounding" etc contribute to this. Therefore, there seems to be a strong case to be made for a complete rewrite of the section to make it more factual and less ... Enthusiastic.

Lp500 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Agreed, it reads/sounds like a long advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.83 (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was just coming here to say exactly the same thing. The moment you include superlatives it ceases to be a neutral Wiki entry and becomes advertisement. Especially once there are discussions entered into about which tuning company provides more/better options. 86.180.172.63 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the section has a lot of problems. Anyone who has commented here should feel free to be bold and at least remove the inappropriate adjectives, either here or on any other article where they are a problem. There's clearly a lot of trimming to be done to this section. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison tests

[edit]

The "Comparison test" section is irrelevant. As stated elsewhere, this is not advertising space. There is no similar section on any article for most of the cars mentioned. I propose that the whole section be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh911 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Comparisons between brands in car articles are discouraged here, because too often they turn into a pissing contest. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Nissan GT-R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFY

[edit]

You talk about the GTR as if it is the only model of GTR. I understand that it is the 2007 successor to the Skylines but it is necessary to make it apparent that this is an r35. Speak about the R35 not the skyline. too broad of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesPickles (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you rephrase that please - it is not very clear what problem you are pointing out or what solution you want.  Stepho  talk  22:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan GT-R 50 Italdesign

[edit]

https://gt-r50.nissan/#/en - unsigned by 93.38.65.148

Feel free to add it to the article. An additional non-Nissan reference would be good too.  Stepho  talk  22:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuners

[edit]

U1Quattro@ has just deleted the tuner info. For most articles I would 100% agree with you. But the R32..35 Skyline (and a few others like the Toyota AE86) seem to have a tuner movement that is far larger than the original car itself. I typically see modified Skylines almost every day on my drive to and from work. Some sort of summary of the tuner market would be helpful - at least in broad strokes.  Stepho  talk  04:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be mentioned, most cars never go as far as the GT-R has in drag racing. The thing about the speed limiter was also the topic of much discussion. It should be less exhaustive, trying to cover the entire history of the incremental improvements in quarter mile times and increases in power is much too broad. The tunability of the car very likely caused some people to buy the car and ignoring that seems like an error. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informative article. It doesn't cause people to buy the car. Buying guides are there for that. Tuner community isn't a part of an informative article and it never should be. There is also a huge tuning community for the Mazda RX-7 and the RX-8 but their articles don't mention that. Hope that helps. U1 quattro TALK 18:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brief section on the prevalence of tuning is suitable, as it would be for the AE86 and a few other products. We do not need exhaustive lists of tuners and outputs and lap times and such. This article is quick becoming an entirely useless and unreadable mess. I am a JDM fan but I think maybe editing this article should be 100% restricted to people who think that this is what R33/R34 should link to. If eliminating any mention of tuning is what it takes to keep fanboys away, then I could be in favor.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 0-60 mph time in 2.6 seconds

[edit]

I saw an artical that they wrote MY2013 GT-R can accerelate 0-60 mph in just 2.6 seconds. Can we add it for this page? Here it is - http://www.the370z.com/other-vehicles/62676-2014-gtr-info-545hp-0-60-2-6-secs-7-18-6-ring-time.html Muffyogsan (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems to be someone extrapolating how fast it might be able to go, the press release it's referring to has no such claim. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add a new paragraph about the GT-R NISMO's Nürburgring lap time in lap record segment.

[edit]

I saw some track focused car pages have a paragraph about them Nürburgring lap records. So can we add a paragraph about Nürburgring lap record of this car like them? Muffyogsan (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Racing

[edit]

Need to be added drag racing for this page. So I'm going to start it and I'm kindly requesting from other editors to help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffyogsan (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro removed all of it, [1], if you want to restore it I would be fine with it. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored as there was no consensus for its removal, It does need trimming but I certainly object to its removal. –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these edits. Can I edit new informations for this category? Muffyogsan (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R36

[edit]

As a general notification, this vehicle is going to be 2026 and is currently not in development. It's on hiatus. R35 production ends in 2022, with nameplate going on hiatus. I will not provide any information beyond that. Carmaker1 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lap Records

[edit]

Why reverts? They were lap records. I actually checked every single lap time before adding to this page. You better check them. Game for Game (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people care about Nürburgring laps is the long history of a large cross section of high performance cars being tested on that circuit, when you are talking about most other tracks there is no such stiff competition. I think WP:UNDUE weight is being given to unimportant information, as in WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Toasted Meter (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but you looking at this thing in a wrong way. These laps are not did by personally or someone in public. These are from car magazines. Not only GT-R there's more high performance vehicles tested on these circuits. You better check out the lap times on these circuits. Game for Game (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for us is WP:VERIFY. Whatever we state has to be either very obvious or verified by the reference. In this case, the references say what the lap time is (at least I assume they do, I don't have them myself) but they don't say whether that time is a record or not. Therefore, we either need to provide a reference that explicitly says it was a lap record or we need to not say that it was a record. Showing the actual lap time is no problem (assuming it was in the reference), even if the circuit is not particularly well known to laymen.  Stepho  talk  10:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respecting your attention. Yeah they do, there's lap times in the magazines and that's why I referenced them to these lap times. Only few magazines didn't mention about production car lap record. But I researched on internet about these lap times. And they were fastest production car lap times at the time. So that's why added them. If cannot trust me just feel free to checkout about these lap times. Game for Game (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point of WP:VERIFY. The article can only say what is in the references. If the reference specifies a lap time then that is no problem - we can say the lap time. If the reference explicitly says that the lap time was a record then we can also say that. But if the reference does not explicitly say that it was a record then we cannot say that it was a record. It's not a matter a trust. We inherently do not trust any editor - not me, not you, not any of us. Every fact must be either obvious or backed up with a reference that can be checked independently of any editor's honesty. If the reference does not say that it was a record then you would need to provide a second reference does say that it was a record - or shows a list of record times that includes that entry. Otherwise we would have to keep the time but remove the claim that it was a record.  Stepho  talk  21:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found something. It's has the lists of lap times. I don't think everycars are included on it. But the GT-R is there. Better check them out. New cars are added which is faster than the old GT-R's. So get help from given sources to know that they were lap records around the tracks at the time.

https://fastestlaps.com/models/nissan-gt-r

https://fastestlaps.com/models/nissan-gt-r-r35-530-ps

https://fastestlaps.com/models/nissan-gt-r-r35-550-ps Game for Game (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"fastestlaps.com" is not a reliable source, it's based on user contributed/compiled information. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You got it wrong. I'm not saying to use it as a source. I already given reliable sources for the lap times. Stepho said "show a list of record times that includes that entry". So that's why I added Fastestlaps. Fastestlaps is the only internet source (I can find) that showing the lap times. You can clearly see that the lap times are records at the time. And also they used the exact sources what I used on lap times. I hope you understand. Game for Game (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the links you gave. If they are user contributed then they fall foul of WP:USERGENERATED. Even if that wasn't a problem, they were not very clear about whether it was a record for the circuit (ie comparing all cars that have been on that circuit) or a record for the car. I could easily interpret "best" lap to mean "best lap that this car did but possibly other cars went even faster".  Stepho  talk  10:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just use other information in given links. You can see circuit name and the GT-R's lap time front of it. If you click on circuit name. It'll will redirect to list of laps did by several cars on that circuit. Then you can clearly see they were lap records at the time. And I have another solution. If you not satisfied with this. Let's add a citation needed tag on each lap records? Can we? Game for Game (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Game for Game I would suggest you go read on WP:NOTDATABASE. In addition, regarding your sourcing, read WP:SPS and WP:USERGENERATED, this has been previously communicated to you via your edit request on Talk:PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds to provide reliable source however because this article isn't locked, you can't bothered even after I revert your edits supported by GTR fans forum site which is deemed as user-generated, and follow up with the same source. I didn't revert your follow up edits doesn't mean I acknowledge your edits. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks for letting me know. Game for Game (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not get me wrong. I added Fastestlaps to only to prove that these lap times are actually exists and they were lap records at the time. I never thought to add Fastestlaps as a reference for content on this page. In Fastestlaps look at every circuits that I mentioned in this page and it's lap times. You can see they used the same sources that I gave for GT-R lap times in this page. If you compare the GT-R's lap time with other vehicles that set a lap time at the same circuit before the GT-R, you can clearly see the GT-R's lap time is a record at the time.

I'm not trying to say Fastestlaps is reliable or not. It's the only internet source that showing these are lap records at the time. If you cannot accept it, you can see the given magazines as references for this lap times. If you cannot make it happen, we should add a "citation needed" tag on every lap record. Game for Game (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands now, we have references for the lap times but not for the claim that they were a record. Therefore, we can leave the times in but need to remove the claim that they were a record.  Stepho  talk  21:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they were actually records. Some magazine's says it. Only few doesn't. Game for Game (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. For those references that actually say it was a record (not just showing a time) then we can also say that. And for references that only mention the lap time without saying it was a record then WP can only mention the lap time. WP can only say what is in the reference - no more, no less.  Stepho  talk  10:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then what do we supposed to do now? Driving Center Groß Dölln, Zwartkops Raceway and Llandow Circuit are the only times that doesn't say they were not records. Game for Game (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then for those 3 we remove the claim that they were records - but we can leave the lap time itself.  Stepho  talk  11:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Game for Game (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's still so much incorrect incorrect in the lap records section. The Youtube video supposed to verify the Castle Combe Circuit record claim doesn't say production car lap record, the Willow springs Youtube video source doesn't say fastest production car, the AutoBild source for Contidrom 3.8 km doesn't exist, since there is no August issue (it's a weekly magazine), the video Nürburgring GP 5.15 km Course doesn't say anything anything about road-legal production vehicle lap record...

And I suspect that most of the sources not available for checking don't do what they are supposed to do either. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this

[edit]

On August 6, 2021, Nissan announced, all 300 units were sold out and stopped accepting orders for the GT-R Nismo and Special Edition from costumers. According to Nissan, 99% of costumers chose to buy the GT-R Nismo

Costumers is misspelled

Done. Changed to "customers". Game for Game (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and recognition

[edit]

I removed some entries in this table that I would say are WP:UNDUE,

"one of the best resale values of any sports car" is not all that much of a "recognition".

"Best Car to Buy Nominee" it was one of nine and did not win, the list is from Motor Authority which is not all that authoritative.

"one of the Best Performance Cars" it was one of twelve and Car Connection is not much of a publication.

"one of the Best Performing Cars" it was one of nine.

"Used Sports Car of The Year" How many readers care about the "Car Dealer Magazine Used Car Awards 2019"?

"The Most Talked About Car on the Internet" from "Zutobi", the volume of postings on the internet about a car is not so important as to be included in an article about the car.

You are giving undue weight to minor praise from minor publications. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the best resale values of any sports car is not all that much of a recognition". Why itsn't. Is there's no one resale their sports cars or something? In a YouTube video by Carwow that showing cars that has best resale values also includes the GT-R. So I think its a good recognition because this was given by Yahoo Autos.

In case of the Motor Authority, I think it is authoritative. Because theirs informations were used several times as reliable sources in this page and other vehicle pages too. Yeah the GT-R is one-off nine nominees but I think its at 3rd place or something. It doesn't says it but the GT-R was mentioned at third on the list. Visit-https://www.motorauthority.com/news/best-car-to-buy-2012

Car Connection's best performance cars used in several vehicle's WP pages as recognitions. For example see Honda NSX (2nd Gen). Being one of the nine or twelve is a great recognition because there's lot of competition between performance cars.

"Used Sports Car of The Year" is a award that straightly given to Nissan. Given source also from the manufacturer.

Internet is the biggest vast network that connects all computers and other devices. So a recognition from it isn't important? this car being the most talked about car on it, And you can probably see there's more than 50-100 cars on the list. It's a great recognition in my opinion. Game for Game (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Reception section added. Feel free to help to improve it by adding information from reliable sources. Thank you. XT RedZone (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top gear summary on YouTube

[edit]

I have watched the YouTube clip of Clarkson & May, and the quote as originally stated (there's that word again) doesn't appear. The actual quote starts at 4:33 of the clip and is Clarkson leaning in the window, and he says "there's no car that accelerates..." then he stumbles over his words, and finally continues with "...over 30 yards like this one does."

Also, at no point in the clip do either of them explicitly say "I want one". They both say they'd like one at different points, and in different ways - but if you're going to use quotes, you must get it right.

Please comment here as to why you think your interpretation is correct, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that very same video, at 4:59 of the clip (after Clarkson's "there's no car that accelerates over 30 yards like this one does" quote) James says "you know what the other way of thing" and Jeremy asks "you like it?". May replied "I do" then Jeremy says "I like it" at the very same time May says "I want it" and Jeremy also says the very same quote after him but a bit louder.
Seems like you misunderstood at this point. The quote that they say is "I want it" but the quote you pointing out is "I want one". My last edit was fixing it. Hope you understood. Best regards. XT RedZone (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've reverted my edit again. You seem to have watched the video, so I don't understand why you're insisting on the quote being incorrect. I'll post this over at Third Opinion to ask for another viewpoint and opinion.
For the record, I believe your edit summary of "you cannot change informations that were in this page for a long time period without ending the discussion" to be grammatically confusing, but I think you're saying I cannot make changes to the article just because the info has been there for a while. If you're referring to consensus, or specifically Silent consensus, then generally you're right - unless the information is wrong - then I can make changes, as is the case here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion in this discussion either way. But when something is being disputed and is under discussion then WP:BRD tells us to leave the article in the state it was just before the dispute began - regardless of how correct or wrong either side thinks it is. After the discussion, then we change it to reflect consensus.  Stepho  talk  23:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is; you'll notice I've not reverted again - and I was the one to start discussion. Can I ask why you've no opinion in the discussion? Would you mind watching the video and then giving your thought on what the quote actually is? Is it correct as currently shown, or is my version accurate? Obviously they both cannot be correct. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Around time 4:59 in the video, they both say "I want it." The article is thus correct as currently written. ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ParticipantObserver, thank you for your attention and effort. XT RedZone (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ParticipantObserver, that's not the quote being challenged though. The issue is the longer quote that the original (and current) text says "there's no car that accelerates when you look from 30 yards like this one does", but the actual youtube video says "there's no car that accelerates... {stutters} ...over 30 yards like this one does" Clarkson simply does not say what he is attributed to in the current article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote in the article is uncorrect, words should not be omitted from a quote without showing it. See MOS:PMC. YouTube subtitles show "there's no car that accelerates when you look from over the 30 yards like this one does" Drachentötbär (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I agree that the current quote is uncorrect, the subtitles are wildly inaccurate and should not be relied upon. The quote we're now agreed on "I want it" comes up as "I do I like you toss it I want it" What do you hear when you listen to the longer quote? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarkson statement from the lede

[edit]

I've removed the Clarkson comment from the lede, as the lede should summarise the rest of the article, not be a dumping ground for additional miscellaneous info. I've just checked the Nissan Skyline GT-R article lede, and it's in dire need of a rewrite, so is not a good example to compare to - WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding. If it's to stay, it needs to be rewritten and better placed elsewhere. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XT RedZone - "He didn't adduced a vehicle that in first place and leaved it unknown" - what? Is English not your first language? That would cast a different light on both this and the above situation. Additionally, this may not be the best place for it in the current article state either, as this particular statement came from Clarkson's twitter account, and is not a Top Gear opinion. I don't see where else it could go without rewriting the reception section though. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with that rephrased content. If you still think it should be rephrased feel free to do it. Just reverting every single edit and starting unnecessary discussions will improve nothing in this article unless wasting other editors time. What are you waiting for? XT RedZone (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's nonsense. If you want it included, you need to discuss it here and say why it should be included. I don't see the value of including it without major rephrasing - which I'm not prepared to do. Therefore the onus falls on you as the contributing editor to justify inclusion, but you need to do it without forcing your version. You will notice that I still disagree with the top gear quote above, but have not forced my version while it is discussed. Please have the courtesy to do the same here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Chaheel Riens "not to present new facts and information" who said? Could you provide a wikiproject article or a discussion that proves it. If the problem is with Clarkson's statement, I added it only to show the GT-R has a notable positive thoughts from journalists. Because we cannot add the whole reception section in there. If you feel the lede that I added should be rephrased or changed, feel free to do. Removing it and leaving it empty doesn't improve the article. If you couldn't, just let me re-add it and someone or I'll improve it step by step. And I'm requesting another editor to provide a third opinion about this issue. XT RedZone (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEDE. The issue is not Clarkson per se, it's that you're introducing information that is not corroborated or expanded upon in the article itself. The lede is not "empty" - it already has summary content. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:LEDE, I was not able to see anything saying that we can't add any newer information into the lede. "introducing information that is not corroborated or expanded upon in the article itself" well, in my opinion I disagree with it, and I have no issues with the ledge that I added, if you think it is, why you cannot just edit it yourself? As I said before, doesn't have to remove it unless a simple rephrasing. Yeah lede is not empty, but currently it doesn't summaries the entire article and it's just incomplete. Even though you didn't provide a reasonable reason to remove it unless rephrasing it. XT RedZone (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEDE says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". The idea is that a reader can read that the lead paragraph and have a pretty good idea of what is to come. This allows the reader to quickly decide if this article is suitable for them or not. It is normally accepted that references are not required in the lead because the points are nearly always expanded further down.
It could be argued that the details of how the GT-R came about is important but this is normally handled in a "History" section just after the lead paragraph.
Clarkson is more of an entertainer than a journalist (although I don't like his style of entertainment). Either way, his comments are more appropriate in a "reception" section and are certainly not the most important thing about the GT-R.  Stepho  talk  10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stepho-wrs Understood. But they weren't a reason to remove other informations right? So currently, my thoughts were to add it back, remove the informations that should be removed and then you can rephrase it if it's necessary. Can we agree with it? XT RedZone (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that one of the reasons for removal was poor use of the english language I'd suggest that you post your suggestions here to the talk page where the merits can be discussed without detriment to the project. You can't just drop poorly written prose into an article and constantly expect other editors to fix it up for you. I have no bones about copyediting work prior to insertion, but the concept of adding information that you already suspect may need work to bring it up to an acceptable level is anathema to the project in general, and a waste of all our time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's your problem actually is, but for me and other editors had no issues with my english. "You can't just drop poorly written prose into an article and constantly expect other editors to fix it up for you" then what are you here for? What's your purpose? Pointing out other editor's english isn't good enough? I'm not suggesting to fix it up for me, it's all about article's improvement. "waste of all our time" unfortunately, that's what you exactly doing right now. Even if the content written with poor english, there are no rules that says we should remove it unless rephrasing it. XT RedZone (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that you're inserting poor quality text into the article, and getting aggressive over it when you are challenged over it. Whilst you could expect an editor to fix it up for you once or twice, (and we should note that WereSpielChequers, Arjayay, John of Reading - and indeed myself, have been doing this) it's become a constant issue with many of your edits. The article is littered with poor phrasing. Whilst many of the issues are simple errors, you shouldn't rely on others to fix them up for you. I've offered that they could be fixed in a draft situation, but please curb your enthusiasm in the name of quality. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if the issue is with me, use my talk page to point it out unless making complains in this talk page. "and we should note that WereSpielChequers, Arjayay, John of Reading - and indeed myself, have been doing this", except the term "indeed myself", I appreciate other editors for their effort which helped the improvement of this article unless complaining others typing mistakes and etc. I don't even bother what is your problem really is. As per the third opinion provided by Stepho, changes have been made, feel free to rephrase it if it's necessary. XT RedZone (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Just look at these edits: "As Nissan considered, the GT-R became a huge success in the automotive industry, because from a considerable price tag, its been able to set record breaking acceleration figures by automotive magazines and lap records in notable racetracks such as in the Nürburgring." This is just terrible. You cannot expect edits of this quality to be inserted directly into the live project. I appreciate that telling somebody WP:COMPETENT rarely yields positive results, but you just cannot edit to your own level and constantly expect otherse to pick up your slack. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that Stepho has in no way condoned or given the opinion that your info should be included in the lede. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too subtle. To be clear, I am (politely) against the changes to the lead made by XT. The information is good but belongs in other sections lower down. Many of his other changes have improved the article. His English is rough but I was planning to wait until he had finished and then correct the grammar. Normally I would complain (mildly) about grammar but I am grateful that he has added so much information.
Also, according to WP:BRD, any changes under discussion on the talk page should not be edited on the article - wait for consensus from all participants (not just one other editor). During the discussion, that part of the article should remain in its previous state - in this case, without XT's addition. After consensus, then the article can be updated according to the consensus.  Stepho  talk  22:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I know my english is terrible (it is not my first language either). As I already mentioned, feel free to do any other changes for my edits except removing them. Because informations that I added to this article are from reliable sources, I don't see anything reasonable to remove them. I'm quite happy that you're willing to improve this article. Also, I would like to see the consensus to be made as soon as possible and improve this article in the best way possible. Best regards. XT RedZone (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Its been two days, and no consensus have been made. Is this discussion slowly becomes like the WP:DTS? XT RedZone (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no consensus for change has been reached, no change is made. Although it could be said that whilst not consensus per se, majority has been reached - as the third opinion editor you specifically reached out to (rather than using the proper WP:3O process) has also said that they are "(politely) against the changes to the lead made by XT". Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XT took my saying that his changes do not belong in the lead as somehow endorsing that they belong in the lead. I have restored the article back to what it was before these changes were made, as per WP:BRD. XT, please do confuse my politeness with agreement - I think your changes do NOT belong in the lead. Lower down is fine but not in the lead.  Stepho  talk  13:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A time which isn't a verified lap record shouldn't be put into a list named lap records

[edit]

If you list lap times below the heading lap records, it follows that they are lap records themselves. So a lap records heading shouldn't be above lap times which aren't verified lap records. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're below the heading "Lap records" because they're lap records, which was according to the given sources. There's only 3 entries which requires a better verification, and I'm working on it. "Citation needed" tags will be applied only for those entries until that better verification was provided. XT RedZone (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Drachentötbär, and a lack of good faith by XT RedZone in their own edit summary. Also, the latest addition was (as usual) poor quality English, so I've reverted that as well. I stayed away as long as I could, but that was beyond the pale. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Nissan auto.it time

[edit]

The anonymously added 10.5 seconds 400m time is probably fake and was never tested by the magazine. It's more than half a second quicker than any other standing start times for this car and the number of decimals is atypical for the magazine. Drachentötbär (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor use of English in a live article - again

[edit]

I've stayed away from this article for a while, but happened to notice these edits. As before - you cannot just throw text at the article and hope that other editors will correct the appalling use of English - and in the later edits inclusion of weasel words as well. If you're unable to spot these errors before insertion - and when reverting to put them back in as well - then you really need to consider posting to either draft or talkspace before submitting to a live article that can be viewed by the entire planet. As a single example:

  • "The Nissan GT-R had momentous success in motor racing, as it have accomplished various championship wins, race wins and podium finishes"

Almost every edit you do introduces errors - I see multiple grammar and tense mistakes scattered throughout the article all of which have come from your edits, and you insert such large swathes of text that it's difficult for the more forgiving editors to pick up on them all.

Please - what is your reasoning for thinking this is OK behaviour? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what: I'll make a deal with you. I give you two weeks - until Friday 28th October - to fix up all the grammatical errors you've introduced in this article - not just those in the current edits, but all of them. That's for you to fix them, not to simply add more and hope that others will fix them for you. If you do - great; you've improved the article. If not, accept that you need to think of an alternative to your current method of editing.
The issue is - and always has been - that I cannot get my head round the reasoning and expectation that think it acceptable to add terrible prose into a live article, and either ignore it, reinsert it when reverted, or just expect others to pick up behind you all the time. Show that you can take responsibility for your edits - and errors - and fix the errors before compounding them with more. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to fix some of those errors in this article, but after I saw your statement that you left, I changed my mind and now I feel like I don't wanna do this. First of all, who are you to give me a deadline? you're the one in charge of this article? am I working for you? I have never expected someone to fix my editing issues, you're just improvising things and blaming others as always. I can't understand what is with you when someone else fixes my or someone else's errors, because obviously you have nothing to do with it. Is this how you support other rookie editors? Is this how you improving Wikipedia? I don't think so.

I was thinking about leaving Wikipedia couple of days ago, and now I think its time. Because, of course I don't wanna work with lazy and unsupportive people. I'm so worried about your mental health. I hope you'll get some help, and most importantly learn to update this article, when I was returned after a three month break, this article was three months behind. This article was so peaceful before you messed it up. XT RedZone (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, remember that we are all volunteers here. Which means:
  1. No demanding other editors do something.
  2. If your grammar skills are adequate, then try to use good grammar (ie not forcing others to clean up your messy grammar).
  3. If your grammar skills are not the best (English not first language?) then add stuff anyway - somebody will clean it up (probably me - but if you're just being lazy then I might simply revert it).
  4. Don't do the old "I'm gonna leave" the first time somebody is a bit rude to you.
  5. Be polite.  Stepho  talk  01:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XT RedZone - of course I'm blaming others. I'm blaming you. You're the one constantly adding the sub-par information, so who else should I blame? You still haven't actually answered my question of why you think it's acceptable to knowingly include poor quality prose - which is especially weird because you also say that you "have never expected someone to fix my editing issues". So why do you knowingly do it?
Assuming the demand statement is to me - which is fair enough - it's a deadline, not a demand - XT is under no obligation to fulfil it. However there is no denying that the article is full of errors, almost all of which have been introduced by XT as well. Two weeks to show good faith and a genuine intention to improve not just the content, but the way the content is presented is more than fair given the number of times this has been brought up and challenged. Under the circumstances, I'm also overlooking XT's edit warring of simply reverting to reinstate their prose - note that simply saying multiple reversions "is not edit-warring" doesn't make it so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023/24 update

[edit]

Here's a source for the 2023 (2024 model year) update (I hate the term "facelift", but to be fair it looks like most the changes are front end): [2] I wasn't sure if I should revert the last revision with section changes, or try to re-add the new section in the new revision, but if someone wants to make that call, here you go. --Vossanova o< 13:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Nissan GTR Premium?

[edit]

Is there a page about the Nissan GTR Premium because I couldn't find it?50.93.90.64 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premium is just a trim level rather than an actual model. It's mentioned in the "2023 facelift" section.  Stepho  talk  20:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see.50.93.90.64 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constant NPOV violations

[edit]

This article reads like it was written by a massive fan of this car (if not a Nissan marketer) and is full of WP:PEACOCK terms and other unsourced WP:POV statements. In particular the way it talks about Carlos Ghosn comes across as rather promotional in nature, full of statements like "[Ghosn] determined that a new GT-R would grant success for Nissan" (apparently implying Ghosn to be clairvoyant) rather than a less-loaded phrasing like "Ghosn believed a new GT-R could be successful for Nissan". This is not helped by the fact that many of the sources used in this article are just Nissan press releases, in a way which often seems to go against Wikipedia's policy onf WP:PRIMARY sources. This is a long article and I have tried to at least cleanup the lead, but it seems some editors think differently, so I have started a talk page discussion. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanBodyPiloter5: Agreed in full. This is a problem for any car with lots of followers, you remove one thing and twenty fans add back a bunch of badly formatted junk about their favorite car. In the time it takes grown-ups to check the veracity of ten additions, fools can add a thousand new pieces of nonsense. I will say, however, that GT-R Registry has always appeared to be a dependable source to me. Production numbers there are pulled directly from Nissan archives.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. It didn't seem particularly contentious so I just tagged it rather than removing it, but given the state of the rest of the article I was somewhat suspicious that someone was just trying to cram links to their fanpage into the article. Moving beyond that part, if people keep trying to add WP:PUFFERY into the article it might be necessary to get some sort of page protection in place, at the very least, given articles like this are a magnet for fanboys making poor quality edits. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but not fully. It seems some of your changes in the lede changed the meaning of some sentences and lacked notable info. For example, "obtained from the Skyline GT-R" should remain in the lede, because it is important to let know the readers, that the same meaning of the "GT-R" observation carried onto the R35 too, as it would show that R35 is more connected to its predecessors, despite being a separate model. Also, Ghosn's statement "the GT-R would be a global icon for Nissan" should remain. Because it gives an idea for the readers how Nissan expected the GT-R to be in the future before its release. It was Ghosn's quote of his thoughts, so its better be unchanged.
I agree that this article has lot of Nissan press releases. Feel free to remove them or add more independent sources. But I think some of them should remain. For example, those press releases that were added as sources for technical specifications. They should remain, because those were more reliable than independent sources. Independent sources were not that stable, as different sources claimed different claims.
Feel free to continue your work, but make sure that notable information would remain unchanged. Gaayhan (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get the impression that English is not your first language, so I am going to try to be easy on you. The "obtained from the Skyline GT-R" part is redundant (see MOS:REDUNDANCY) because it is already obvious from the context of the previous two sentences that that is where the "GT-R" part of the name comes from. It isn't clear what "exclusively-developed" means, given the sentence then goes on to say that the platform is in some way based upon another car's platform. When that phrase is used for the engine I would suggest saying that the engine "was developed specifically for the GT-R" since that is far more naturalistic and likely to be understood (unless I am misunderstanding the intention of calling the engine "exclusively-developed" and the intent is actually to convey that it was developed in secret by an exclusively selected group of engineers). Saying that "Ghosn was convinced that the GT-R would be a global icon for Nissan" is just random WP:PEACOCK terms that don't belong in the lead. If you want the body of the text to go into more detail about how Ghosn thought Nissan needed a halo car to be sold worldwide, then that could be more reasonable (also, who was Ghosn convinced by?). Also, don't remove citation needed tags without adding a citation. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being easy on me, lol. For example take a look at Honda NSX, first generation NSX stands for "New Sportscar eXperimental, while the second generation NSX stands for "New Sports eXperience". So it is quite obvious that some successors does not stands on the same abbreviation. I think it would be better to remain "obtained from the Skyline GT-R" in the article to avoid confusion. Correct me if I'm wrong, "based" does not means "same". PM platform is an evolution of the FM platform, specifically developed and exclusive for the R35. I think the engine was actually developed by some selected Nissan LeMans race engineers, I cannot remember properly. In my opinion, "exclusively-developed" is better than "specifically developed for the GT-R", as it has more simplicity and provides a better understanding about the car's exclusivity (because you know, some people claims that the GT-R is just another Nissan and shares lot of parts with Nissan commercial vehicles). I think Ghosn meant "the GT-R would achieve success worldwide" or something like that, but not something like "it would be sold worldwide". That's why it should belong in the lede, instead of being under a subtitle. If your problem is with the word "iconic", feel free to replace it but do not change the meaning of the sentence. Those paragraphs in the development section are not unsourced. They are sourced by the "Nicoclub", as you can see in the second last paragraph. I'll add it for other paragraphs to avoid confusion. Sorry for late replys, I'm kinda unwell these days, so nevermind. Gaayhan (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been subjected to multiple violation edits, see my comments above. There have been editors in the past who are passionate about this vehicle - which is fair enough - but usually their English skills have been dubious, and their expectation is that other editors will fix their errors for them. Ironically the end result has been that although some editors have stepped up and done so (and thanks to them as well,) others have simply given up and moved to other areas of the project. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens: That's how I approach it. I generally just stay away from anything that has too many stans (I encountered a genuine Tommykaira R33 the other day, something which would usually trigger some editing, but I am uninterested in stepping into this sort of mess). Personally I think this article should be permanently protected and if a few adults would like to spend two thankless weeks pruning it that would be even better.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we split off some of the sections about racing cars into separate articles?

[edit]

Currently this article is extraordinarily long, with almost 25,000 words of prose. Some of that is due to fanatics filling the article with nonsense, but a lot of it is because this article currently covers the roadgoing GT-R alongside various different racing cars, such as the GT500 and FIA GT3 variants. Should any of those be spun off into separate articles? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they should be spun off into separate articles, but I think the motorsport section in this article contains way too much detail that would be more appropriate at pages covering the activities of the relevant racing teams involved, especially with the customer-focused GT3 versions. For example, the amount of detail given to the Super Taikyu series here is pretty absurd since it is mostly an amateur series that doesn't receive a lot of coverage from independent reliable sources. With the GT3 variants, I think mostly a few sentences about each series – covering the championship wins and other notable results – in one subsection about the car's history in GT3 racing in general would be enough. The GT500 and GT1 versions can probably have more detail since both of them were raced in a single professional series, and at least the GT500 car received a lot of development throughout its use in the series. I think the road car's "Lap times" section could also be heavily trimmed, since most of the lap times have not received significant coverage from secondary reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a database of random lap times. Carfan568 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see we were both writing similar things at about the same time. I fully agree that the lap times section is currently a strong case of WP:NOTDATABASE applying. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lap times" section

[edit]

Now a certain sockpuppet has been blocked and the page has semi-protection, I think it may be wise to ask how relevant this "lap times" section actually is? I'm sure countless publications have taken this car around countless different motor circuits and recorded countless different lap times. Sure, Nordschleife times are always likely to receive some amount media attention, but how much encyclopaedic value actually is there to including how fast some journalist of whatever ability was able to drive the car around Driving Center Groß Dölln or the Llandow Circuit? Personally, I would limit such a section to at most detailing times set by production-spec cars at the Nordschleife, Pikes Peak, and Tsukuba, and only if sources independent of both Nissan and the driver could actually be found reporting on those times. The current setup just seems like a target for bloat in an already bloated article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment in the thread above, I agree that only lap times that have received significant coverage from secondary reliable sources should be allowed to be included. The table should be deleted per WP:NOTDATABASE, and instead the lap times should be presented only in prose with context. I don't think it would be necessary to limit the section to times set at Nordschleife, Pikes Peak and Tsukuba, as reliable secondary sources generally only give significant coverage to noteworthy times. Carfan568 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up those courses purely because they're the only ones I would expect to receive such significant coverage (although with Tsukuba it might only get such coverage in Japanese-language sources). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed most of the section, leaving only the parts which do not appear to reference WP:PRIMARY sources. I am unsure of the reliability of the Autoevolution reference on the Goodwood Hill Climb time and the Tsukuba parts need someone who knows Japanese to figure out what's going on. This is just a first pass through. I also fixed some MOS:PSEUDOHEAD issues in the section. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search in Japanese and couldn't find any sources covering the first Tsukuba lap time, so it can probably be removed unless someone finds a good source. Autoevolution appears to be a low quality source. For example, here another more reputable source is covering them misquoting a person and spreading false information. Some of their articles are clickbait-y and in general it seems to be a no-name publication. Also, I think the section should probably be renamed to "Other lap times" and the subheaders for the various tracks are unnecessary now since there aren't many of them and the times don't warrant a lot of coverage here. Carfan568 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the section. Frankly it's probably more trouble than it's worth to have it around. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is likely the case. I did find this and this for the second Tsukuba time, though. Carfan568 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those would probably be fine for a brief addition about the lap time to the section on the variant that set it. No need for a whole dedicated section, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

[edit]

"please change parctice to practice". 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:15E1:6E30:FBF1:377F (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

[edit]

This should be a good article 199.216.45.1 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors who have made a significant contribution to the article may nominate for GA. Your IP address does not appear on that list. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of false facts by fanboys and lack of NPOV

[edit]

The acceleration table. Many values don't look right, and it looks as if someone just spammed 16 more or less accessible supposed sources at the end of table to mask fanboy fantasy numbers. One of them is the auto.it claim revealed as fake last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration/Archive_4 I checked Car and Driver, May 2008 is given as a source, but none of the values from the C&D test is in the table. Sport Auto (France), February 2010 numbers aren't in the table either, ..., just keep spamming inaccessible fake references so when editors see incredible fantasy numbers they must be sourced by them. How credible is it that three cars have exactly the same time and terminal speed at the quartermile ?

There are many statements in the article with source, but if you look at the source it doesn't support the statement.

The article states a Porsche 911 Turbo's time of 7:40, but I can neither find it in the source nor anywhere in the web.

Cars are declared as holders of non-existing record titles.

Then for explaining why independent lap times were not as quick as the official lap times OR reasons are brought up that's because of being driven by journalist drivers through traffic with imposed safety limitations, that two sources could't imagine how anyone could drive that fast with their customer car is ignored.

Marketing speech like "Due to its demanding nature, the iconic racetrack played a pivotal role in the development and served as a performance benchmark for the GT-R." is in the article.

That Porsche and Chevrolet and consistently engaged in lap time battles against Nissan is unsourced.

I'd be careful about calling the 2016-2017 Nismo a mass-produced car, only 582 were built.

It's sourced (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times/Archive_9) and relevant which modifications were made for the Nismo run. Why should we hide the parts of the N-Attack package which "can not be used on public roads" according to Nissan from the article ? Drachentötbär (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I would like to emphasize that this discussion aims not to remove significant and factual information from the article, but rather to enhance its overall quality. Deleting well-sourced and long-standing information without achieving consensus does not contribute to the article's improvement. Over the years, this article has been overseen by a diverse group of dedicated editors, which makes it challenging to omit substantial information without prior discussion.
I would be more than willing to assist in addressing any concerns you have regarding what you referred to as "fantasy fanboy claims". Could you kindly specify the acceleration figures that you find questionable and lacking in sources? Additionally, providing images of the relevant magazines you own would be immensely helpful, as it would immediately substantiate the inaccuracy of those figures.
Regarding the 911 Turbo's lap time of 7:40 minutes, it is corroborated by the National Geographic documentary. The independent lap times are clearly off the pace compared to official times. These evaluations are conducted by professional journalists, often with traffic and safety constraints in place. Therefore it is noteworthy to highlight these factors, as readers may be curious about real-world performance. The statement, "Due to its demanding nature, the iconic racetrack played a pivotal role in the development and served as a performance benchmark for the GT-R." is also backed by the National Geographic documentary. Upon reviewing the sources for the lap times, it is evident that they consistently tie back to the respective manufacturers. Each source attributes lap times, compares them to either Nissan or its competitors. This has sparked an unofficial rivalry (created by automotive publications) between these respective manufacturers, resulting in numerous articles comparing lap times of these manufacturers (they are given in the article). Porsche made it official as they accused Nissan for overstating the performance of the GT-R, and 911 (997) GT2 RS' official development code number, "727" was selected for the project corresponds to one of the GT-R's lap times.
It is important to note that all modifications made for the Nismo's lap time, are clearly outlined in the article's "N-Attack package" section. To maintain focus, I suggest we address the acceleration figures first before delving into the lap time discussion. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Autoadrenaline (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were only a few independent lap times. The article states that they were slower because of traffic and imposed safety limitations. Journalistic integrity would require to retry the lap if significant time was lost because of traffic or at least to mention it. The Drivers Republic journalist estimated how much faster the car could go than in his lap, he would definitely have mentioned loosing time because of traffic or additional safety limitations. As per WP:Burden the statement has to be verified or removed.
The car in the Sport Auto Supertest was provided by Nissan just like in the first test, not a customer car like tested by Edmunds or Drivers Republic.
"the GT-R retained its 0-97 km/h (60 mph) time of 3.2 seconds, set a Guinness World Record for the fastest accelerating four-seater production vehicle" is misleading the reader into thinking that the Guinness time is 3.2 seconds, it's 3.5 seconds however. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that existing sources confirm that the recorded lap times were achieved by professional journalists. The term "safety limitations" encompasses driver aids such as traction and stability control, as well as actions like easing off the throttle on wet sections of the track. I recall reading a statement in a Sport Auto magazine (though I cannot specify which exact issue) regarding the Nordschleife lap time of a GT-R. It mentioned something along the lines of "With three buttons in the center console pushed up, the GT-R is ready to tackle the track" (I acknowledge this statement may not be considered reliable, but I'm mentioning it for context).
As demonstrated in this video, and as is common practice in most automotive magazines, the VDC-R button is engaged, indicating the use of traction and stability control aids (sources are cited in the article for verification). In official onboard Ring lap time videos, it is evident that the VDC-R button is switched off. This is a significant factor contributing to the slower independent lap times. Even though this particular video was a test run on the GP circuit, the journalist/driver did slow down due to traffic, resulting in a slower lap time. I could not locate any of those factors or another lap attempt in here nor in the 09/2014 issue, which leads to my skepticism regarding your statement "if significant time was lost because of traffic or at least to mention it".
I appreciate you bringing the issue with the Guinness World Record claim to my attention. Autoadrenaline (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sport Auto article does mention the traffic problems: Leider nicht wie sonst exklusiv und alleine zur „time attack“, sondern im Rahmen eines Trackdays. Vorab: Eine absolut freie Runde ohne Verkehr war dem Nissan GT-R Nismo so nicht vergönnt. They wrote that they're usually alone on the track for testing and that they couldn't get a totally free lap which implies that they lost time.
Your button engaged theory is speculative original research, just as your theory that it was done because of imposed safety constraints and that it made the lap slower. I'm quite sure that professional magazine testers are able to drive safely without electronic driver aids. They could have enabled them to get a better laptime.
Currently the article implies that all laps by automotive publications were driven through traffic and with imposed safety limitations, you have to verify both for every single time as per WP:PROVEIT, it's not even verified for a single one. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate providing clarification to the Sport Auto statement. While I would not categorize that as an original research, it is more akin to a routine calculation, which is permissible. The factors I provided were not derived from thin air; verified sources confirm that Sport Auto employs driver aids during GT-R testing. In this video, it is evident that Drivers Republic followed a similar approach - the onboard camera shifted at the Dottinger Hohe straight, and the VDC button was in R-mode. The use of such aids naturally limits the vehicle's full potential and lead to reductions in speed due to intermittent power cuts and applied braking force.
A comprehensive review of sources available online suggests that employing these aids typically results in slower lap times. This is unless the car in question is a modern rear-wheel-drive model like the Corvette C8 or the AMG GT. Although the sources I provided did not conclusively prove that all the lap times were affected by traffic, they sufficiently demonstrate the use of driver aids.
Hence, my present stance regarding the article's phrasing is, "However, the lap times were not as quick as the official lap times, due to being driven by journalist drivers with imposed safety limitations". Autoadrenaline (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not verified that driver aids were used for all lap times.
It's not verified that driver aids made the Nissan GT-R slower with all drivers. It's possible that the cars were driven both ways and the quickest time taken.
It's not verified that someone imposed safety restrictions on all the journalists. Who should have done it ? Nissan ? Usually the manufacturer tells the journalists which settings they should use when handing over the cars.
Too much speculation, too much can go wrong. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the provided sources, it is clear that both magazines utilized driver aids. The critical factor here is that the lap times were conducted by the same magazines using the same vehicle model, the driver does not matter. Even for the well-balanced and track-focused GT-R Nismo, Sport Auto employed driver aids during laps on a wider Grand Prix circuit. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they would have used similar aids for the heavier standard model on the more treacherous Nordschleife. Their parent/sister magazine, Auto Motor und Sport, in their testing further affirms this testing methodology for this specific vehicle (1,2,3).
None of the sources indicate the possibility of the cars being driven without safety restrictions (driver aids), and the article does not claim that external parties compelled the magazines or journalists to implement these measures. If such claims do exist, please feel free to validate them with credible sources. From my perspective, there appears to be little room for speculation, as everything has been corroborated by reliable references. Autoadrenaline (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read and understand WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
You make conclusions no reliable source dares to make. You have to verify. Drachentötbär (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reaching a consensus, given the limited number of direct sources, is the core of this discussion. I would like to re-emphasize that the above reliable sources directly and explicitly state that the lap times were set by journalists, and that safety limitations (driver aids) were in use during the Drivers Republic test. Additionally, the testing methodology of Sport Auto/Auto Motor und Sport aligns with this, therefore it is not considered an original research. It is worth re-noting that there is a direct source further confirming the similar testing methodology of Sport Auto, though it is not accessible online and is likely in an issue I could not locate. It may be discoverable by someone with access to that specific issue.
I acknowledge your clarification that they typically conduct tests without traffic, but I maintain my stance based on the reasonable factors I have presented for this specific instance. Incorporating the perspectives of other editors on this matter will expedite the path to a consensus, given that we both have encountered difficulty in reaching one. Autoadrenaline (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're falling for the Appeal to probability, Faulty generalization and Correlation does not imply causation logical fallacies.
Probable is not the same as true, "driver aids enabled at some occasions" does not imply "driver aids enabled at all independent tests", slower "with driver aids enabled" does not imply "because of driver aids enabled".
"Imposed safety limitations" is a less informative and misleading generalization from "driver aids enabled", made me think of speed limits or other heavy restrictions, I wouldn't even think of driver aids. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest trimming all lap times and acceleration figures etcetera to an absolute minimum. If I opened this article trying to get some information on the GT-R I would give it one look and immediately go elsewhere, it is currently largely unreadable thanks to all the cruft, braggadocio, fanboi nonsense, and general lack of editorial cohesion.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of "mass-produced" car ?

[edit]

Mass produced car is usually used as synonym for Production vehicle. None of the current and past definitions on Wikipedia fits to how it is used on this site. This self-created category doesn't exist and what readers suspect as meaning doesn't apply here. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-awarded records

[edit]

The only official record is the 4-seater 0-60 mph acceleration. The drift record was made by a 1,361bhp car modified by GReddy Trust. The ice record was unofficial and the record claims in the tuning section are mostly tuner and fanboy bragging not supported by any independent instance for records. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-standing-mile-%E2%80%93-car shows that higher speeds were officially reached long time ago than those sold as records in this article to fool the readers. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as much as you please as per earlier discussions. This page has more problems than just about anything in WP; at least there are adults in the room elsewhere.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by a block-evading sockpuppet

[edit]

The Autoadrenaline (talk · contribs) account has been blocked as a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XT RedZone/Archive. Should this account's edits to this article be reverted per WP:BLOCKREVERT? They have made a lot of edits here. Carfan568 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specs of Nissan GTR R35

[edit]

Specs of Nissan GTR R35 117.230.12.155 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

[edit]

They just announced the GT-R production will end in October, with 2024 being the last model year. This should be updated in the years produced section as well as any other applicable places. AndrewWake77 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We never put an end of production date in infoboxes or tables until it actually happens. Sometimes they change their mind and continue production. However, it is okay to add some text saying that end of production is planned for October 2024. WP:CRYSTALBALL is our guide. Also beware that non-Americans do not use model years and get really confused by them. To most non-Americans, the 2024 model starts in mid-2024. Just say planned end of production in October 2024 and leave out the model years.
It is vital that it has a supporting reference from a reliable source, as per WP:FACT and WP:RS. Magazine guesses from an unnamed insider are not reliable sources. It has to be official. We will delete it immediately if it does not have reliable references.  Stepho  talk  00:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka 03:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nissan_GT-R&oldid=1229144598"