Talk:Nissan GT-R

Curb weight and end of production

Could you please check the productions dates of kurb wight 2019- and power output 2016- ? Since, the GTR is no longer produced, these dates should be terminated as well ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.162.28 (talk • contribs)

New topics go at the bottom of the talk page. Please sign your comments by putting 4 tildes (ie ~~~~ ) at the end.

What is the problem with the curb weights? Please be aware that Wikipedia uses internationally understood calendar years instead of US specific model years (which are generally not used or understood outside of N.America).

The article says "In June 2024, Nissan announced that North American market production of the GT-R would end in October 2024" (my emphasis). It is still being made and is still being sold in at least Japan - see https://www.nissan.co.jp/CARLINEUP/ . N.America is not the same thing as the entire world.  Stepho  talk  09:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements for the Article

I believe the Performance section (and some parts of the article in general) could benefit from some refinement. The performance table, which includes multiple acceleration metrics, feels excessive—especially considering that many of the figures are poorly sourced. In my view, it would be more concise and effective to include just the essentials: 0–60 mph, 0–100 km/h, 1/4 mile, top speed, and the Nürburgring lap times. The development section could be shortened to improve readability.

Most importantly, I question the need for a separate article dedicated to GT-R variants. If we remove less relevant content (such as one-off models) and trim down overly detailed sections, it would be compact enough to be included in the main article—similar to how other car articles are structured.

Of course, I am happy to make these changes myself, but before proceeding, I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of other editors. Cheers! FormulaFreak1 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If we were talking about the typical family car (or even a low end sports car) then I would agree with you. But as you get into faster cars then 0-160 km/h, 0-200 km/h and braking from similar speeds becomes more important. And if we removed them from the table then the table would not be much smaller than what it is now.

Again, I generally agree with the sentiment of keeping related models together. But the GT-R is quite a different beast than the other members of its family. It would be hard to merge it back into other articles for this family without sacrificing too much. A big advantage of a web encyclopedia is that we have plenty of room for more articles. An extra article is far better than a single, overloaded and therefore hard to read article.  Stepho  talk  13:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you. I agree that more performance data is always welcomed, especially for a sports car like the GT-R. However, my main concern is that poorly sourced information reduces the overall quality of the article. Replacing such figures with data from reliable sources is the right approach.

Regarding the 0–200 km/h time, I believe it's unnecessary. Quarter-mile (400 m) runs already trapped around 200 km/h, so listing both seems is redundant. Similarly, does including a 1 km time really add value?

It seems there was a misunderstanding about my suggestion. I was proposing to trim and merge the GT-R variants article (which covers the R35 trims and special editions) back into the main article—not to merge it with its predecessors. A separate article feels unnecessary, especially since we can remove non-noteworthy content and integrate the key details into the main GT-R article. That’s the approach taken in most car-related articles here.

As for the info box image and unit numbers; shouldn't we use the car in its latest specification for the main image? Also, I noticed that production numbers are listed in the info boxes for all Skyline GT-R generations, so I assumed it was standard practice.

FormulaFreak1 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Dragtimes sources and legacy section

I could not quite understand why it is necessary to discuss the inclusion of a certain source that have been part of this article for such a long time, but I will address it anyway. As I mentioned earlier, these figures have been recognized as reliable by multiple editors, evident from their sustained presence in this article and their use in other related lists, such as List of fastest production cars by acceleration. Could you elaborate on why you consider these sources to be "unreliable"?

@Mr. Choppers I am not sure why you are categorizing the Legacy section as a "fansite" when it meets Wikipedia's three core content policies and only discusses content (facts) from reputable sources. When multiple credible sources discuss a topic, we cannot just disregard that information (e.g. Porsche 959). If you feel that it should be re-written in a certain way, I would be happy to collaborate on that. However, I disagree with the removal of this certain section, including the long-standing Reception section.

3rd party opinions will be appreciated, Thanks. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not a fansite, we do not require an 8,000-plus character section with glowing quotes from various reviewers. This is the equivalent of when car companies include select quotes from reviewers on their websites. It is unnecessary and unencyclopaedic. I like the GT-R, I'd love to have one, but this is not the place. Opinions are also not facts.

For the dragstrip numbers, I wouldn't include them for the reasons stated by TKOIII. Aside from the issue of dragstrip preparation etc, please do point me to where they state a 0-200km/h time: I spent ten minutes of my life looking at the glitchy, pop-up ridden dragtimes.com webpage and I cannot see it stated anywhere. Also, once we include one set of test figures then someone else wants to add their favorite test results (there are literally thousands of car magazines and websites that have acceleration tested the GT-R).

As for List of fastest production cars by acceleration, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and realize that that page mainly exists as a safety valve where fanbois can throw inflated (deflated?) acceleration numbers of their favorite cars at other instead of wrecking things elsewhere; it is sort of a safety valve and play room for people who would otherwise be a nuisance.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting argument for keeping the list, as a honeypot or "cake for Homer to ruin"; I never would have considered that. :) BTW I did intend to remove the entries with Dragtimes/CarWow sources at some point per my discussion, but they may still be there. --Vossanova ^o< 16:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I view it as noteworthy and relevant to the article. Wikipedia articles are fundamentally built on reliable sources, which explicitly include the published opinions and evaluations of professional reviewers. I do not see a policy-based justification for excluding a Legacy or Reception section—provided it is written in accordance with WP:RECEPTION—that summarizes widely discussed and notable commentary about this vehicle, including both pros and cons. I am also unaware of any guideline that discourages the inclusion of positive (“glowing”) quotes from multiple independent reviewers.

It is documented that magazines sometimes test manufacturer-supplied press cars that may be tuned for optimal performance, which raises questions about consistency and reliability. Testing methodologies also vary; for example, some outlets conduct performance testing on drag strips (e.g. MotorTrend). In this context, performance figures from sources such as Dragtimes—which also uses standardized equipment like VBOX—are not fundamentally different from magazine testing. While these figures were not my original contributions, the reported 0–200 km/h time appears to be derived from the quarter-mile data indicating a trap speed of 124.45 mph, which corresponds to approximately 200.28 km/h, which I see as acceptable.

I kindly request you partially revert your recent edit so the article remains in its prior stable state until consensus is reached. This would include retaining the long-standing Reception section (which does not include my contributions) and the Dragtimes sources, without unreliable source tags. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

So far, three editors (me, Vossanova, TKOIII) do not believe that the Dragtimes references are reliable. Consensus is pretty clear at this stage.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

On the topic of the DragTimes sources, you mentioned that outlets like Motor Trend sometimes tests at drag strips. However, at least according to them, they "never use special, surface-treating traction-enhancing products". We would need confirmation that these tests occurred on a non prepped track before we even talk about the rest of DragTimes' testing methodology. There is a lot of work that needs to be done when it comes to making sure Wikipedia articles are using performance numbers achieved through comparable testing methodologies, or noting otherwise, and one of the first steps in that process is to pluck low hanging fruit, like times recorded on surface prepped drag strips.

Regarding the reception/legacy section, I support its inclusion in the article. I do believe, though, that it needs to be kept to an appropriate length, and carefully edited to make sure it represents an accurate and well rounded view of the car's reception by critics. In particular, your newly added "legacy" portion needs a thorough going through, and possibly gutting. I wouldn't go so far as to delete all of the information there, though, as some of it is relevant. My personal thoughts towards reception sections for automotive articles is that they're necessary to capture things such as the subjective experience of a car, cultural impact, position in the market relative to competitors, and other elements of a car that can't be represented by raw facts. After all, the whole is often more than simply the sum of its parts. TKOIII (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Dragtimes does not specify whether traction-enhancing products were used, nor does it state that they were not used. Therefore, assuming the data is unreliable due to a lack of explicit confirmation about such products is, in my opinion, incorrect. Dragtimes does, however, provide detailed track conditions such as temperature and altitude. If traction-enhancing products had been used, there would be no obvious reason not to disclose that information alongside those conditions.

As I mentioned previously, the reliability of magazine acceleration times can also be questioned due to differing testing methodologies. Regardless of who conducts the test, when it is done, or where it takes place, there will always be variables that invite scrutiny when it comes to acceleration figures. For this reason, our criteria should focus solely on showcasing times that are achievable by a car in its factory-standard form. Anything beyond that introduces unnecessary complexity and overcomplicates the comparison.

I agree with your view on the legacy/reception section. They provide important qualitative context that raw data alone cannot capture, which is essential. My contribution to the legacy section reflects my own perspective, and it is natural that others may agree or disagree with it. This is precisely why I would welcome input from other editors as well, and I encourage you to contribute your own perspective to that section. FormulaFreak1 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

All of the above discussion is beside the point because this section is almost certainly AI-generated, which makes it a violation of WP:NEWLLM. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

FM platform

kind of confused by the statement that he was reluctant to develop the car on "the outdated FM platform" since according to that article this was the same time that that platform debuted. Were they introducing their brand new platform based on obsolete technology in 2001? I can see a small independent doing something like that, but not a major company who could afford to develop an actual up to date chassis. Especially since the car turned out to be one of the highest performing street cars in the world and then went on to be produced for another 20 plus years. I don't follow automotive news like I used to but I never heard that the GT-R was considered to be falling behind or obsolete, at least until the end of the production, twenty years later, and the only things mentioned in the article are things like crash safety and noise levels, not actual performance. If it was "outdated" before they even began one would expect it to be roughly equivalent to them trying to sell a high performing 100-200K dollar car based on the same chassis as a 1990 Skyline GT-R in 2025.

It says they had to modify the platform to make it more rigid and suitable for high performance, but that's not because it was "outdated", it's because it wasn't designed for that originally and needed to be adapted for the higher demands of the new role.

At the very least it could stand some explanation, since the FM platform article gives no hint as to why they would say that. It doesn't even say it was actually just an upgrade of an existing platform that they called "new" for marketing purposes. As far as one can tell by reading that, it was a brand new platform for a brand new car.

Also thought it would dwell a bit more on how revolutionary the GT-R was and how it changed the market forever. I don't even like the GT-R especially but I do remember what a huge deal it was when it came out, it was literally amazing at the time, and it definitely led the way for high tech high performance vehicles for the next decade, showing what kind of gains you can get from intelligent use of technology. I was going to say for an affordable car but it seems that was not something that lasted. They were what, $75K when they came out, now they are reaching $200K? I guess that's "affordable" compared to a Pagani but it's not exactly cheap. Idumea47b (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

From the article, near your quote: "In April 2003, he constructed a Infiniti G35 based GT-R prototype on an advanced iteration of the FM platform known as the Premium Midship (PM) platform."

In other words, the FM platform wasn't good enough, so he upgraded it and made it into an up-to-date platform. It's this PM platform that lasted so many years.  Stepho  talk  09:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)