Um yes it does, i have given proof, the reason why that 13.3 is there because in
the link i provided it did not show a 0-124mph time, and if its 1/4 mile time is
11.0 AT 125mph, its obvios the 0-124mph time IS NOT gonna be 13.3, i wonder
sometimes bout some of you ppl:)
I really doubt this car can do 11s flat in 1/4 mile. It's just too heavy and not
too powerful. I know it has one of the most advance AWD sistems and gearbox, but
I doubt it!
How can it be that Spec-V version lapped Ring slower than "stock" GT-R? GT-R
Spec-V has more power, torgue, weights less, is faster on straight and so on,
and is... 8 sec. slower than GT-R on Ring. It's another reason to think that
Toshio Suzuki lapped ring in car that wasn't technologically the same as GT-R
avaible on market.
Interesting discussion about 1/4 mile time. If it's right, someone should change
0-160 km/h and 0-200km/h results. Otherwise it will turn out that accelerating
from 0-100 we have 3.2 sec., after 5.2 sec we get 160 km/h and then rappidly
after 2,6 sec we gain another 40km/h up to 200km/h. Anyway, there is clear
contradition in specs and someone should take care about it, perhaps by
evaluating plausibility of sources providing these inconsistent infos.
ok, I digged and I found fallowing:
According to Edmunds Inside Line, we have:
1/4 mile in 11,5 sec. at 124,2 mph;
0 - 60 mph in 3.7 sec without roll out;
there are more parameters than power and weight. in fact theres more than 10 of
them!
Um yes it does, i have given proof, the reason why that 13.3 is there because in
the link i provided it did not show a 0-124mph time, and if its 1/4 mile time is
11.0 AT 125mph, its obvios the 0-124mph time IS NOT gonna be 13.3, i wonder
sometimes bout some of you ppl:)
Best Motoring.
changed
