NOT FE friendly, Not all about the GTR. . .

[dremd]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Turbines are not really configured to run anything other than standard gasoline(in any octane) but they can do it for extended periods without any real issues other than maybe getting some residues stuck on the injectors, walls, flame can, and turbine blades.

I can 100% assure you that the motors they (MTT) are using have spent 99%+ of their (previous) life running JetA. They are NOT configured to run Gasoline; the MAY run on it, I don't know, but they are CONFIGURED to run on distillates. Jet A is just the fuel that is on all of the offshore platforms here. Also Every platform I've ever been involved with has had a 0 Gasoline engine policy (They run small Diesels).

Originally Posted by theunchosen

That said when anyone talks about running them on those things they are talking about power generation so its running 3600 rpms 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Take it with a grain of salt, because your car engine wouldn't last very long under those circumstances(maybe 2 weeks).

That sort of turbine is ENTIRELY different than a turbine that would go in to a n aircraft/ vehicle. They are VERY heavy, but very efficient/ durable. I have a buddy who works on BP Thunder Horse and he is amazed by their large Turbines I'd throw some #'s out there, but i can't remember any. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll start a new thread with accurate data.
I Do not know the RPM range, but 3600 RPM seems very low for a gas turbine.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Ok I hear you both. Its a supercar, its not a toy. Its not a special purpose car its a production car.

It's special purpose is to do everything well.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

And the Ariel Atom is a production car and I am pretty sure had it been run it would have beaten the GTR.

I've never done anything but sit in an Atom, I could only speculate about this one.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The GTR has an extremely expensive service regime. Its going to cost you more than 15K more than you paid in just the first 10K miles.

True; but find me a car in this performance catogory which isn't and I may just buy it.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Chrysler built a turbine engined car in 63. The powerplant was very primitive compared to anything manufactured from 89 on as far as turbines go.

for those interested
Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Ask Dremd how fast the Y2K was.

about like a Stock TT supra to 60
About like a Hyabusa at the end of the Quarter
I haven't seen what it would do after that, but I assure you it is spectacular.

That said a Turbo Hyabusa is faster in the real world.

I "Raced" their S-10 in the TDI last fall, it was hilarious! It looked Like I was going to waste him all the way through the intersection, Then it spooled, and he instantly let off, but in the 1~2 seconds the truck was spooled he got WAY ahead.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Then I am going to tell you thats not even that big of a turbine and its configured in several ways that destroy HP. The biggest problem is the exhaust has to be turned and routed forward making a 180 degree turn and then doing it again. On a turbine its a big deal because back pressure is the enemy.

I don't know, but I BELIEVE that's done for noise; it's stupid loud as is.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

A car is plenty long enough to mount on longitudinally have it run the front wheels have the exhaust pipe out the back at reasonable temperatures and to avoid starving the engine. The y2k doesn't have an ideal intake.

Again Noise is a huge issue.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Effectively if you took a very light chassis like a Lotus and dropped in a turbine of the same weight as their 1.8 engines(200-300 lbs) you come out with a 1 ton vehicle with no trans and output up to 300-450 hp.

With a Atrocious lag time; I've spent a good bit of time in a Supra with a T-77 and that is bad for road course, I can't imagine what this would be like on a road course.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

If you add a trans you can add say 2 more gears and the vehicle will crucify the GTR, around bends(lighter)

1) Lighter Does not mean fater in the bends, it means more nimble, easier to control.
2) Crazy long lag time will kill it's ability to react to power needs.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

straights(drag)

Only with a MONSTER torque converter to spool up the turbine; in the mile no doubt, but in the 1/4 no.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

and to the grocery store because the engine is more fuel efficient.

Biggest issue here is turbines idle at very high speeds / fuel consumption (I've heard 30% of max power fuel consumption just to idle but I have no Data) and are difficult to stop/ start. For Fuel economy the GTR is the clear winner, but the Turbine could run on many different fuel types . . .

I sound like I'm beating on you I swear I don't mean it that way.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Chrysler's tank(the 1963 turbine car or the A-831) weighed twice as much as the lotus does and turbine designs have radically improved since then(some in power but mostly in FE). It still got 23 mpg.

Wikipedia Says 17 MPG; I remember the Chrysler Turbine at Henry ford Museum in deerfield, Mi has a sign that claims that ford wasn't able to get double digit fuel economy out of it and therefore chose not to further chase the technology.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

A turbine powered lotus could do everything the GTR can do, more, be cheaper to maintain(by a long shot) and get better gas mileage.

See Above

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Its the end of WWII and I am arguing we should build the Jet fighter despite the fact no one else has done it yet, and you are arguing for supersharged radials because we have done that and they are cheaper to produce because we have lots of those around. Give it a few years and true-blue supercars will be turboshaft.

I'd LOVE to see it; but in traffic the Turbine isn't efficient, drivable, or quiet enough.

There's a reason that the railroads don't use them any more. Gas turbine-electric locomotive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a reason that Destroyers using Turbine technology have conventional Diesels built in for standard cruising. Combined diesel and gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( I can't find/ remember that class destroy USA has that uses this Technology, but it is a huge improvement over Turbine only)

[dremd]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The EV1 turboshaft was in a prototype and was scrapped because at the time Microturbines were not high-end enough(low P-W). Now on the other hand its getting alot better.

Quick call to my buddy (who likes turbines) says they will not use Turbines for under 1000 shaft hosepower simply because that is the break even point going from Diesel to Turbo-Shaft. Simply put the larger the engine the better the ratio of surface are (heat loss) to power producing mass.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Like I said above my complaint about it is its not an engineers car.

I don't see how you can say that.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Why would I make a more complicated engine thats only advantage over a much simpler more powerful one is its first 2 seconds off the line?

No; there is no Throttle response for 2 seconds; the power is less for more like 10 seconds.
Obviously this depends on how the turbine is setup. My understanding is that the more efficient the design the worse the power delivery/ time graph is.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Yes they have spool-up down time. No its not very long. Its the same as a turbo.

Not even CLOSE. the Y2K spools MUCH MUCH more slowly than a 1500 WHP Supra with a T-88.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

So your twin turbos in your GTR take the same amount of time to spool up as my engine.

You have obviously never been in a GTR; it is difficult to tell that it is turbo charged.
Less lag than either the Supra, or the TDI.
Don't forget it runs Twin VGT's Variable geometry turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by theunchosen

When that happens you've got 480 horses, I've got 700 and somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 ft-lb of torque.

True; If I wanted that kind of power I'd run Compound turbo's. See Supraforums.com

That way I'd get Decent MPG (25 ish out of boost), FAST spool, and 700 + WHP. Closest thing I've seen to a free lunch yet; you are basically taking 3 power/ efficacy curves and merging them together in the best posable way.

[theunchosen]

A much lighter car has the ability to perform better under turning. It has 1800 lbs*velocity less momentum still going the direction of the road. In short it takes alot less downforce to get the same ability to turn and hard.

The Y2k is loud because its a bike. No real need to tone it down and even more so no place to put it. In a car you can run the exhaust port out to 10 feet and baffle it.

I disagree on the need for some form of conversion. Yeah it takes a second to spool but I mean the GTR's 1/4 mile is almost ten seconds(9.9) and it terminates the strip at 143.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVOx-6f3yCQ

the Formula 1 has trouble keeping up and in 9 seconds the F16's front wheels are no longer touching thr ground at 9 seconds.

The F-16 is using turbojets which have much higher spool up time. If both cars are allowed to let their engines idle(so you don't cook your turbos and so mine reaches idle) the turboshaft could spool for a full 2 seconds and still tie the GTR. The Y2k clears in 9.8 seconds and it can't even apply full torque without losing traction(too few wheels).

If however you race to the .5 mile the turboshaft is going to get there in an additional 4.5 seconds even if it just maintains its 200+ MPH that it terminated the strip with. The GTR will still be fighting and I'll say that it makes it to 200 mph in .5 mile and it makes it there linearly(it will take alot longer to achieve each mph so the average velocity will be biased towards 143). It takes the GTR another 5.2 seconds and that was assuming the turboshaft doesn't accelerate after it terminates the 1/4.

[theunchosen]

the reason I can say its not an engineers car. . .is the McClaren F1 is NA and kicks its butt. It also weighs 1300 lbs less with a much larger engine and seats 3 to the GTRs 4. Its also 16 years old.

The GTR costs the same as Mazi, Ferrari and Lamborghini for the service and fluids but only competes in the super car not the exotic super cars category. The Honda NSX is almost completely serviceable by anyone whose car savy. Its a little cramped to change belts and things but its definitely something a substantial number of users do.

Lotus is an engineers car. There is not really a good reason for this car to weigh 3800 lbs, have insanely high maintenance costs for its performance bracket, and have a flaw that makes it to the internet(weak transmission).

I mean seriously, if I am going to drop 80K I want alot more bang for my buck. The Ariel Atom 1s went for 44K US and did 0-60 2.9 and 0-90 in 4.2 and weighed only 1200 #. The thing had 350 HP/ton the GTR's only got 252. Keep in mind that 0-60 is achieved without sequential transmission. It's P-W is comparable to a sportbike rather than a car buts its low CG allows it to turn like a formula 1. That's an engineers car.

"The work is complete, not when nothing else can be added, but when nothing else can be taken away."

The idea is more crap, more stuff to fix, more stuff can go wrong.

IF I had 80K to drop on one I'd get a used atom off one of the original buyers, enough solar panels to go off grid and a 1st gen insight.

[dremd]

This is Getting bad; If anybody thinks we should stop Let me know.

I'm trying to provide Sources + Experiances to back up my argument rather than pure hearsay.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

A much lighter car has the ability to perform better under turning. It has 1800 lbs*velocity less momentum still going the direction of the road. In short it takes alot less downforce to get the same ability to turn and hard.

Please check your Physics Friction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friction is a direct relationship of Friction coefficient to pressure.

SO if you double mass (vector going down) you also double traction (vector left/ right).

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The Y2k is loud because its a bike. No real need to tone it down and even more so no place to put it. In a car you can run the exhaust port out to 10 feet and baffle it.

Which will restrict the exhaust flow just as much as the y2k does.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

I disagree on the need for some form of conversion.

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Yeah it takes a second to spool but I mean the GTR's 1/4 mile is almost ten seconds(9.9) and it terminates the strip at 143.

Where do you get your info from?
2009 Nissan GT-R ECU Tune 1/4 mile trap speeds 0-60 - DragTimes.com
Puts it at 11.1 which is in line with what I have seen.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

the Formula 1 has trouble keeping up and in 9 seconds the F16's front wheels are no longer touching thr ground at 9 seconds.

First off; we are talking about turbo SHAFT engines in this thread; NOT Turbo Jet. Comparing the 2 is like comparing a fan boat to a prop boat; of course the fan boat. (Not a very good analogy; but you get the point.

Secondly you did notice that the F1 car was still ahead at wheels up; right?

Thirdly the F-16 is able to hold near full thrust standing still; find me a transmission that can handle that.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The F-16 is using turbojets which have much higher spool up time.

Where are you getting this information from?

first off the turbo Jet can get full thrust standing still; I can see no way to do that with a turbo shaft (where is all that energy going to go?)

Originally Posted by theunchosen

If both cars are allowed to let their engines idle(so you don't cook your turbos and so mine reaches idle) the turboshaft could spool for a full 2 seconds and still tie the GTR. The Y2k clears in 9.8 seconds and it can't even apply full torque without losing traction(too few wheels).

There you go ignoring physics again.
Friction is not dependent on area. Here's the experiment I did in 5th grade
Friction, normal forces, contact forces: simple experiments from Physclips. Scroll down to "Dependence on area of the coefficient"

Second where do you get the 9.8 Second Y2k time? I can't find it anyplace.

"Typically" the limiting factor on high horsepower motorcycles is the ability to keep the front wheel on the ground. Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgQYChHNv9o

This is countered (somewhat) by a longer rear trailing arm (gives leverage a chance) but is still a factor and is one reason High Horsepower supras can beat turbo hyabusa's at highway speeds (the other is a motorcycles high drag coefficient)


[QUOTE=theunchosen;100068]
If however you race to the .5 mile the turboshaft is going to get there in an additional 4.5 seconds even if it just maintains its 200+ MPH that it terminated the strip with.
[QUOTE]
I totally agree that the turbo shaft will eat a piston engine after 1/4 mile.
You also said it would be good on a road course. . . . . . How many straights are 1/2 mile?

[QUOTE=theunchosen;100068]
The GTR will still be fighting and I'll say that it makes it to 200 mph in .5 mile and it makes it there linearly(it will take alot longer to achieve each mph so the average velocity will be biased towards 143).
[QUOTE]
a) What are you talking about?
b) GTR has top speed of 19x

Originally Posted by theunchosen

It takes the GTR another 5.2 seconds and that was assuming the turboshaft doesn't accelerate after it terminates the 1/4.

Like I said above I have no doubt that a turbine will beat a piston past 1/4 mile.

[theunchosen]

Here you go, case closed lol
Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com

So I quoted progressive to get an insurance quote for me its 133 a month for a Gallardo(that one). Services like oil changes can be done at home(Just read through alot of stuck up comments but apparently some of them don't think it demeans them to do this) and service intervals are 7,500 miles. If its cheaper to own that Gallardo used I'd go for the gallardo every time and just find a manual and a local mechanic and talk until you could do all the basics.

[theunchosen]

I am aware that friction has nothing to do with area, but the bike can't get too close to the max otherwise it risks stability problems.

The problem with weight is momentum is mass times velocity. Friction Mu kinetic is only a percentage of that same masses downward force from gravity. The increased weight is going to push you through the corner harder than the increased traction will keep up. According to wikipedia as well. I'm sure its in there. Mu static even won't get you close to all the normal force the car provides but you have to take all the mass into account as you try and turn.

yeah as mass increases you do increase the downward vector but the sidewise vector increases by literally exactly how much mass you added while the downward only increases 60% of what you added. . .so now that more mass is present its less stable through the cornering.
The 2003 Marine Turbine Technologies Y2K Turbine Superbike motorcycle. for the 1/4 mile time and speed

The turboshaft can achieve full throttle sitting still. It can have a clutch just like the GTR. It can max out or idle up without moving or applying the brakes. Idle, gas engage the drive(release the clutch).

[dremd]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

the reason I can say its not an engineers car. . .is the McClaren F1 is NA and kicks its butt.

True the McClaren is faster in a straight line; but see the following list
1) It is no place near as controllable by the average enthusiast driver.
2) It cost Just under $1,000,000 us 10 years ago So with inflation it cost $1315206.74 in todays money (from last year produced see The Inflation Calculator) which is More than 16 times the cost of the GTR.
3) The Gtr is much quieter/ refined than the McCaren F1
4) I'd bet that in real world conditions the GTR's 3.2 Second 0-60 (very repeatable) would beat the F1's 2.9 Second 0-60 which requres the drivers skill with throttle and clutch
5) The F1 Requires a clutch every 4,000~6,000 miles
6) The other maintance cost are VERY VERy high
7) McClaren felt the need to include a tool box with every car
8) Wasn't this discussion GTR Vs Turbine powered Lotus?

Originally Posted by theunchosen

It also weighs 1300 lbs less with a much larger engine and seats 3 to the GTRs 4. Its also 16 years old.

1) for 16x the Money It should be better
2) It's closer to 1500 Lbs
3) The F1's power plant is Naturally aspirated; it's forced to be larger displacement. It does however have about 150 hp advantage.
4) No comparing the 2 cars; the F1 is a Race car made for the street; the GTR is a street car that can also race.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The GTR costs the same as Mazi, Ferrari and Lamborghini for the service and fluids but only competes in the super car not the exotic super cars category.

Name a car in this category with lower maintenance cost!

Again this is GTR Vs Turbine Lotus Discussion.
BUT
1) Cheaper to buy
2) Easier to drive
3) more comfortable
4) Servicing cost less than 1/2 of the cost of clutches alone on the one car that you have names which has superior track performance.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The Honda NSX is almost completely serviceable by anyone whose car savy. Its a little cramped to change belts and things but its definitely something a substantial number of users do.

I have in fact wrenched on a c30a it isn't bad at all to work on HOWEVER
1) The GTR trounces the NSX in speed
2) The GTR has infinitely superior interior space
3) The GTR Handles better than the NSX
4) Isn't this discussion about Nissan GTR Vs Turbine Powered Lotus?

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Lotus is an engineers car.

I can go with that. Which model are you talking about? I've only ever been in an Exige. My only complaint is that it is nearly impossible for me to get in and out. If I wasn't allowed to touch the ground with my hand I simply couldn't do it.
The car isn't in the same class as a GTR for use ability but definitely an awesome car.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

There is not really a good reason for this car to weigh 3800 lbs,

Do I wish it was lighter; sure but it's not much heavier than a TT supra.
There are a few good reasons for the weight
1) AWD
2) very quiet
3) Very comfortable
4) Every toy ever
5) Loads of room

Originally Posted by theunchosen

have insanely high maintenance costs for its performance bracket,

What else is in it's performance bracket that has lower maintenance cost? Name a car

Originally Posted by theunchosen

and have a flaw that makes it to the internet(weak transmission).

It is my understanding that the new firmware has fixed the transmission failure issue.

I don't own one; I do want one; but I'll never buy one. I have no interest in making the car look better than it is only in pointing out in-accuracies in post.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

I mean seriously, if I am going to drop 80K I want alot more bang for my buck. The Ariel Atom 1s went for 44K US and did 0-60 2.9 and 0-90 in 4.2 and weighed only 1200 #. The thing had 350 HP/ton the GTR's only got 252. Keep in mind that 0-60 is achieved without sequential transmission. It's P-W is comparable to a sportbike rather than a car buts its low CG allows it to turn like a formula 1. That's an engineers car.

Atom is killer car no doubt
BUT
1) This discussion is GTR VS Turbine powered Lotus
2) The Cost is Over $65,000 not $44,000
3) It doesn't have all of the things I want in a daily driver.
4) No comfort
5) No Back seat
6) No trunk

[dremd]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Here you go, case closed lol
Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com

So I quoted progressive to get an insurance quote for me its 133 a month for a Gallardo(that one). Services like oil changes can be done at home(Just read through alot of stuck up comments but apparently some of them don't think it demeans them to do this) and service intervals are 7,500 miles. If its cheaper to own that Gallardo used I'd go for the gallardo every time and just find a manual and a local mechanic and talk until you could do all the basics.

Excellant you have found a car which has the same purchase cost as a GTR.
Few Issues And Older Lambos (Pre VAG) are known for being easy to work on; they do make Tractors.

1) GTR is a new car with a warranty
2) The only Diablo I've ever driven was in the shop for $25,000 worth of work. (I know small sample size) Including an $8000 Clutch (I put that in Maintenance)
3) I could NOT drive one with any frequency; nor could anybody over 5 foot 5
4) Did you know Bob Lutz designed the interior? (Same guy designed the Aztec)
5) Where did you get the info about 7,500 Mile service? I'm under the impression from my cousin (was working on the Diablo) that it's 3,000 mile; don't know.
6) Slower than the GTR in 0-60,1/4 mile, and at Neurenburg I'd guess everyplace except in between 192 and 202 MPH
7) No Back seat, trunk is a joke.
8) Those $8000 clutches alone might add up to the same maintenance cost as a GTR

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by dremd

Excellant you have found a car which has the same purchase cost as a GTR.
Few Issues And Older Lambos (Pre VAG) are known for being easy to work on; they do make Tractors.

1) GTR is a new car with a warranty
2) The only Diablo I've ever driven was in the shop for $25,000 worth of work. (I know small sample size) Including an $8000 Clutch (I put that in Maintenance)
3) I could NOT drive one with any frequency; nor could anybody over 5 foot 5
4) Did you know Bob Lutz designed the interior? (Same guy designed the Aztec)
5) Where did you get the info about 7,500 Mile service? I'm under the impression from my cousin (was working on the Diablo) that it's 3,000 mile; don't know.
6) Slower than the GTR in 0-60,1/4 mile, and at Neurenburg I'd guess everyplace except in between 192 and 202 MPH
7) No Back seat, trunk is a joke.
8) Those $8000 clutches alone might add up to the same maintenance cost as a GTR

If I am coming acorss as defensive or aggressive I apologize, its a bad habit, but once I sink into one particular side of a debate I'll only leave once there iare no scraps of evidence left.

I actually trounced through like 30 pages of notes about them back and forthing about how it was a piece of crap(because it only had 500 horses) but how they wished its upscale brother the Murci was as nice. Maintanence regime on it is 7500 since the 2000 model year and I stand corrected its 6000 for 91-00 and 1500-3000 depending on your driving habits for older.

Mainly, the post is not about anyone other car compared to the GTR as the title implies. I was just somewhat peeved because 5-6 people came out of the wood work on an aero discussion saying it was a halo car.

And the reason the F1 comes with a tool kit is for an important reason. There are no maintenance costs. Each unit has a black box that uplinks to the factory and reports its status(exactly like the one in the GTR except not used to screw you its used exactly the opposite.)

The F1 black box once connected messages the factory and sends all of its stored data. Factory analyzes data and sends back a message for the driver that either everything is green(no check engine light) or something is amiss(check engine light). They then call you and ask if you would like them to send a mechanic to your garage to repair it. They fly him out he fixes they fly him back. He uses the tool kit with the car. Thats why almost everytime you see one up for sale you see a picture of the black box and a picture of the tool kit. Its very important.

I was pointing out that the F1 produces enormously more power on its NA engine. If it were turbocharged it would look alot more like the koeniggsegg CCX as it went by. I prefer NA to boosted if possible.

The GTR is kind of an ugly duck it doesn't quite fit into the exotic category and it doesn't fit in the supercar batch. Its price tag is lower than most supercars but its maintenance schemes are more expensive than Porsches'(My grandfather owns 2 and you can actually do almost everything yourself if you want definitely oil and fluid changes). Its really the same price as the average supercars with better performance, because the maintenance is so high. Trust me its much more expensive than Porsche, because their fluids are on really bad days 15/quart(compared to 80).

The new firmware will not have fixed the transmission problem. The firmware fixed the problem that the recordings shunt when you use the launch system. The problem with the transmission is. . .its sequential. Its a very big complicated system with two gear assemblies thats computer controlled and tries to read a humans intentions and when it gets those wrong is when it damages itself. The engine might think you want to keep ramming the gas but you left off as it switches and then it reloads and switches right back after engaging the gear only for an instant. It causes the teeth to get grinded more viciously than normal and those teeth bits destroy the rest of the trans.

You can actually only buy the Mclaren used these days but you can find them for just under a mil.

Also Maserati is like McLaren in that maintenance on the high-end models is covered completely. So long as you don't crash it they cover it. More expensive than the GTR but way cooler and no maintenance.(MC12)

The original atom was estimated cost in #s when I saw it for 30K British Stirling. The retail price US for the atom 1 which achieves all that was 45 KUSD. The Atom2 and Atom3 have more body paneling cost more and are slower.

I'm just not a fan of the oriental idea of supercar. The Honda NSX escapes my swathe judgement because its a car that has some pieces in common with the mass market(accord parts) and if you can find the parts you can do it yourself.

This car just kind of comes across as the ultimate rice rocket. It just feels like the guy who converts his straight pipes to a thunderously load muffler just because it will make it go faster(?) They could have just skipped all the extra tech by dropping in a bigger volume engine(F1) keeping the good Cd adding passenger space like wagons(around 2.5 kips) and leaving out the fancy delicate sequential trans and diffs that require embryonic stem cells as lubricant.

Given the choices I'd pick the Gallardo because anyone and everyone knows its important. Alot of people that are not car people will see the GTR and think ricer or sports car. If you want an expensive exotic get the best one for the price. Gallardo used definitely beats out a new GTR, cheaper maintenance, looks better and has more BHP/ton as well as you can park in 8 spots at the grocery store and no one will care.