Nissan GT-R (R35) · Facelift 2010
Car comparison
Nissan GT-R (R35) · Facelift 2010 3.8 V6vsJaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonJaguar F-type Coupe
R 5.0 V8
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Nissan GT-R (R35) Facelift 2010 3.8 V6
- Quickest 0-100 km/h2.8 s
- Fastest top speed315 km/h196 mph
- Most powerful550 hp410 kW
- Best estimated range627 km390 mi
- Largest trunk315 L
- Best overall score78/100
- Best performance score92/100
- Best practicality score48/100
Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8
- Highest torque680 Nm502 lb-ft
- Lightest1,730 kg3,814 lb
- Best power-to-weight318 hp/t237 kW/t3.1 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption11.3 L/100 km20.8 mpg US25.0 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption16.2 L/100 km14.5 mpg US17.4 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption8.5 L/100 km27.7 mpg US33.2 mpg UK
- Best economy score77/100
Specification comparison
| Model | NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 550hp410kW | 550hp410kW |
| Torque | 632Nm466lb-ft | 680Nm502lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,740kg3,836lb | 1,730kg3,814lb |
| Gross weight | 2,200kg4,850lb | 2,150kg4,740lb |
| Top speed | 315 km/h 196 mph | Unrestricted 315 km/h196 mph Restricted 300 km/h186 mph Calculated |
| To 99% top speed | 40.3s99% target: 312 km/h / 194 mph Calculated | 62.0s99% target: 312 km/h / 194 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 2.8s | 4.1s |
| 0-200 km/h | 7.9s Calculated | 11.8s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 2.7s Calculated | 3.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 11.8L/100 km19.9mpg US23.9mpg UK | 11.3L/100 km20.8mpg US25.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 17L/100 km13.8mpg US16.6mpg UK | 16.2L/100 km14.5mpg US17.4mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 8.8L/100 km26.7mpg US32.1mpg UK | 8.5L/100 km27.7mpg US33.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 10.2s Calculated | 11.9s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 316hp/t236kW/t143hp/1000 lb Calculated | 318hp/t237kW/t144hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 363Nm/t243lb-ft/ton Calculated | 393Nm/t263lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 627km390mi Calculated | 619km385mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 3,799cc232cu in | 5,000cc305cu in |
| Length | 4,670mm184in | 4,470mm176in |
| Width | 1,895mm75in | 1,923mm76in |
| Height | 1,370mm54in | 1,321mm52in |
| Wheelbase | 2,780mm109in | 2,622mm103in |
| Front track | 1,590mm63in | 1,586mm62in |
| Rear track | 1,600mm63in | 1,628mm64in |
| Ground clearance | 105mm4in | 121mm5in |
| Trunk volume | 315L | 315L |
| Max trunk volume | - | 407L |
| Doors | 2 | 2 |
| Seats | 4 | 2 |
| Fuel tank | 74L | 70L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 269g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Nissan GT-R (R35) Facelift 2010 3.8 V6: Power / Torque
- Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 6,400 rpm | 3,200-5,800 rpm | 6,650 rpm |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 6,500 rpm | 3,500 rpm | 6,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 2.7 s | 3.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 2.8 s | 4.1 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 7.9 s | 11.8 s |
| Top speed | 315 km/h 196 mph | Unrestricted 315 km/h196 mph Restricted 300 km/h186 mph Likely limited |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 1.8 s | 2.1 s |
330 ft 101 m | 4.5 s | 5.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 6.7 s | 7.9 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 8.6 s | 10.1 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 10.2 s | 11.9 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 228 km/h 141 mph | 201 km/h 125 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 550 hp 410 kW |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 550 hp 410 kW |
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 632 Nm 466 lb-ft |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 680 Nm 502 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 1,740 kg 3,836 lb |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 1,730 kg 3,814 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 315 km/h 196 mph |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | Unrestricted 315 km/h196 mph Restricted 300 km/h186 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 2.8 s |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 4.1 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Nissan GT-R (R35) Facelift 2010 3.8 V6 and Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8: 1.3 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 11.8 L/100 km 19.9 mpg US 23.9 mpg UK |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 11.3 L/100 km 20.8 mpg US 25.0 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8 and Nissan GT-R (R35) Facelift 2010 3.8 V6: 0.5 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 316 hp/t 236 kW/t 3.2 kg/hp |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 318 hp/t 237 kW/t 3.1 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 627 km 390 mi |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 619 km 385 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 550 hp 410 kW | 2.8 s | 315 km/h 196 mph |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 550 hp 410 kW | 4.1 s | Unrestricted 315 km/h196 mph Restricted 300 km/h186 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 |
| 11.8 L/100 km 19.9 mpg US 23.9 mpg UK | ||||||
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 |
| 11.3 L/100 km 20.8 mpg US 25.0 mpg UK | ||||||
Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 11.8 L/100 km 19.9 mpg US 23.9 mpg UK | 2.8 s |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 11.3 L/100 km 20.8 mpg US 25.0 mpg UK | 4.1 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | 316 hp/t 236 kW/t 3.2 kg/hp | 11.8 L/100 km 19.9 mpg US 23.9 mpg UK |
| JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | 318 hp/t 237 kW/t 3.1 kg/hp | 11.3 L/100 km 20.8 mpg US 25.0 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | NissanGT-R (R35)Facelift 20103.8 V6 | JaguarF-type CoupeR 5.0 V8 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 550 hp 410 kW | 550 hp 410 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 632 Nm 466 lb-ft | 680 Nm 502 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 2.8 s | 4.1 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 315 km/h 196 mph | Unrestricted 315 km/h196 mph Restricted 300 km/h186 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,740 kg 3,836 lb | 1,730 kg 3,814 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 11.8 L/100 km 19.9 mpg US 23.9 mpg UK | 11.3 L/100 km 20.8 mpg US 25.0 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 627 km 390 mi | 619 km 385 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 269 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 315 L 11.1 cu ft | 315 L 11.1 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 316 hp/t 236 kW/t 3.2 kg/hp | 318 hp/t 237 kW/t 3.1 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Nissan GT-R (R35) Facelift 2010 3.8 V6 | Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 11.8 L/100 km19.9 mpg US23.9 mpg UK | 11.3 L/100 km20.8 mpg US25 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 20.65 LC100 km | 19.78 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 33.23 LC100 mi | 31.82 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,770 L468 US gal389 UK gal | 1,695 L448 US gal373 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 3,098 LC/year | 2,966 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Nissan GT-R (R35) Facelift 2010 3.8 V6
- Is 1.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 8 km (5 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Best estimated range
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
Jaguar F-type Coupe R 5.0 V8
- Has 48 Nm more
- Is 10 kg lighter
- Uses 0.5 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 2 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























