997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79
From: Kennesaw, Ga
Rep Power: 24
I don't really see a stock GT-R being able to lap @ ~ 7:40. 
The C6 Z06 lapped the ring @ ~ 7:42. Granted... it was on run-craps but...
the Z06 accelerates much faster than the GT-R, especially above 100mph.
The advantage with GT-R's all wheel drive in cornering, should be more than offset by the high speed sections @ the ring.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
The Z06 did that time from a standing start. The GT3 did 7:42 in traffic passing quite a few cars.
I think under the conditions, the GT-R with a years worth of testing and 5 pro drivers going for a best time could beat the one driver from Porsche and Chevy especially since Jan only had a few hours to set the time, not weeks on top of months to lap in the same car.
Dont worry, I fully beleive the both the Z06 and GT3 are faster than the GT-R, so the ring times are not indicative of the cars full potential, but Nissan's obsession and overtesting.
I think under the conditions, the GT-R with a years worth of testing and 5 pro drivers going for a best time could beat the one driver from Porsche and Chevy especially since Jan only had a few hours to set the time, not weeks on top of months to lap in the same car.
Dont worry, I fully beleive the both the Z06 and GT3 are faster than the GT-R, so the ring times are not indicative of the cars full potential, but Nissan's obsession and overtesting.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 886
From: Florida
Rep Power: 63
That I can agree with. Logically, the GT-R in Suzuki's hands is low 7:40's, high 7:30's with a legitimately stock car.
Likewise the 997 TT would be slower on PS2's than MPSC, but faster than Aichtner with Walter driving. So they would be around the same time.
Would be interesting to see.
However, from GT-R guys saying they've tried PS2's and the RE070's have more grip, I'm convinced those tires are the GT-R's best kept secret, otherwise it's a fat pig.
Likewise the 997 TT would be slower on PS2's than MPSC, but faster than Aichtner with Walter driving. So they would be around the same time.
Would be interesting to see.
However, from GT-R guys saying they've tried PS2's and the RE070's have more grip, I'm convinced those tires are the GT-R's best kept secret, otherwise it's a fat pig.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,574
From: CA Bay Area, US
Rep Power: 100
There is a reason that the 911 is rear-engined and it has more to do with tradition than any thing else. And it started with the 356. The Gmund 356, the first 356, had a midengine, but Ferdinand and Ferry wanted the car to be more practical and went with rear-engine for the production version so the owner could have four seats to carry the youngin's. This "practicality" carried over to the 911 in 1965, and Porsche won't dare change it because the folks who buy them won't hear of it. As HC said, every motor placement has it's advantages and disadvantages. Porsche has exploited the advantages of rear engine placement and turned the car into a real winner at the race track. The engine is not in the rear because Porsche engineers are stupid or hard-headed, it is there now because of a long tradition. And the folks who buy 911's dictate that it stay there. I would say that Porsche has done pretty well with a setup that was a compromise to begin with. As long as it keeps winning races and keeps the buyers happy I don't think it really matters that the engine is in the rear.
But with an eye toward absolute performance, and all things being equal (and they never are), mid-engine design is the way to go - whether the engine is in front of or behind the driver. In that regard, the Cayman is fundamentally a superior car and handles magnificently. A few more horsepower (that Porsche chooses to omit for obvious marketing and revenue reasons) and it would likely dominate the 911.
Finally, though I have no interest in owning, no less driving one, you have to respect Nissan and the GT-R. It's a remarkable engineering feat - whether they doctored their 'Ring' numbers or not. And they either beat or are competitive with a car (911 Turbo) that costs at least twice as much. Twice. Amazing, and rarely mentioned in the 100+ pages of this thread.
But to me, the value of a sports car is not its Ring times - although they are a fair proxy for the overall performance of the car. It's the speed, feel, sound and build quality of the beast. Overall visceral value - in motion and standing still. In that regard, Porsche's are hard to top. I've driven many a supercar (and own a Ford GT) and for overall amazement, P-car's remain number one on my list.
I for one, despite it's performance numbers, have little interest in pushing a 4,000lb robo-car around the streets, highway or tracks. Nissans have always been rough engined harsh cars and drive-by-wire is something I'll leave to another generation.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,574
From: CA Bay Area, US
Rep Power: 100
Wow.
I go out of town for a few days and this nice little thread got way OT. It's like "My dad can beat up your dad."
If I were in the market for a race car, I would have different selection criteria. Why buy a street car based on results of a race car that happens to have the same logo? Are people loyal to abstract feel/history/pedigree of brands moreso than the objective reality of the car in question? Are we talking art/fashion/image or engineering/performance?
For me, I care about how cars perform out-of-the box (although I'll admit that ability to mod is a factor). I also care about how fast / fun the car will be for ME to drive on street and track-- not so much about bleeding-edge tests with pro drivers doing 11/10ths laps for days and then picking the best one as the reference lap. That's kind of why I actually think Mag tests are interesting, because their results are more real-world since they only have time to do a few laps with each car.
Anyway, in 1593 posts and 107 pages, no one has provided a scrap of evidence to contradict a few simple points that are actually relevant to the topic:
1. GT-R is faster than 997TT in stock form around virtually all tracks;
2. Based on power/weight disadvantage, Point #1 also reveals that the GT-R has some pretty special technology vis-a-vis engine/turbo/diffs/AWD/VDC systems;
3. The price/performance equation for the GT-R is a notable achievement and hopefully will push the whole market toward further innovation that will benefit all of us.
The concerns about running costs and potential tranny fragility are legitimate, but only time (and not forum posts) will tell how serious those issues are long term.
To all the GT-R haters: please go drive one hard and report back.
To all the 997TT haters: please go drive one hard and report back.
I go out of town for a few days and this nice little thread got way OT. It's like "My dad can beat up your dad."
If I were in the market for a race car, I would have different selection criteria. Why buy a street car based on results of a race car that happens to have the same logo? Are people loyal to abstract feel/history/pedigree of brands moreso than the objective reality of the car in question? Are we talking art/fashion/image or engineering/performance?
For me, I care about how cars perform out-of-the box (although I'll admit that ability to mod is a factor). I also care about how fast / fun the car will be for ME to drive on street and track-- not so much about bleeding-edge tests with pro drivers doing 11/10ths laps for days and then picking the best one as the reference lap. That's kind of why I actually think Mag tests are interesting, because their results are more real-world since they only have time to do a few laps with each car.
Anyway, in 1593 posts and 107 pages, no one has provided a scrap of evidence to contradict a few simple points that are actually relevant to the topic:
1. GT-R is faster than 997TT in stock form around virtually all tracks;
2. Based on power/weight disadvantage, Point #1 also reveals that the GT-R has some pretty special technology vis-a-vis engine/turbo/diffs/AWD/VDC systems;
3. The price/performance equation for the GT-R is a notable achievement and hopefully will push the whole market toward further innovation that will benefit all of us.
The concerns about running costs and potential tranny fragility are legitimate, but only time (and not forum posts) will tell how serious those issues are long term.
To all the GT-R haters: please go drive one hard and report back.
To all the 997TT haters: please go drive one hard and report back.
Well done.
Banned
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 112
From: Los Angeles
Rep Power: 0
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,214
From: Colorado
Rep Power: 398
Yah, enjoy this
http://2009gtr.blogspot.com/2008/11/...riveshaft.html
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26013
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26242
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26143
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=25497
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26362
http://www.2009gtr.com/2008/11/2010-...rol-in-us.html
oh, that's right, the magazines do a one day test to sdee who's the best. I guess a top fuel dragster would clean house
oh and more:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/20/n...rom-2010-gt-r/
Last edited by Prche951; Dec 6, 2008 at 08:44 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 192
From: Shanghai, China
Rep Power: 27
Nissan NA GT-R "Specialist" told me personally that the only tranny failures not covered under warranty so far have had "many more then 30" launches. 50+ is just my guess.
There are about 1500 GT-R in the USA now (delivered and in customer hands), with volume deliveries starting in August. People started throwing out BS stats like "30+ bad trannies" and "5 bad trannies just in my area," etc. These claims started flying around about a month ago.
If true, we should be hearing about multiple additional failures each week, right?
No new cases reported in a long time (and only handful of truly documented cases to begin with).
What conclusion do you draw? And based on what facts?
There are about 1500 GT-R in the USA now (delivered and in customer hands), with volume deliveries starting in August. People started throwing out BS stats like "30+ bad trannies" and "5 bad trannies just in my area," etc. These claims started flying around about a month ago.
If true, we should be hearing about multiple additional failures each week, right?
No new cases reported in a long time (and only handful of truly documented cases to begin with).
What conclusion do you draw? And based on what facts?