HVS' first drive in a GT-R around the Nordschleife was in a right hand drive JDM pre-production car, lasted 5 laps and the track was properly wet. That was in September 2007.

His second drive in a GT-R around the Nordschleife was in June 2009, lasted 5 laps, using a GDM spec left hand drive car and yes the track was dry. But he did drive the car with VDC on as opposed to Suzuki's lap which turned the system off. I actually prefer that HVS run with the system on but there is definitely 5 to 6 seconds left there for HVS to extract.

Anyway, that's 10 laps across one and a half years. Not exactly routine, which is what you're trying to suggest.

Needless to say a 7:38 lap time is nothing short of mind blowing for a car with the GT-R's rather miserable paper specs and comparitively poor straight line performance. I'm certainly not complaining.

I expect the ZR1 will lob in a mid to high 7:30s lap time during it's Supertest which is certainly nothing to be ashamed of either.

 

So this is why the GT-R was a staggering 20km/h slower than the GT2 at the Tiergarten braking point? And mind you the GT2 was driven in traffic vs the GT-R's free run.

If they "tweaked" the GT-R and it was that slow then I'd strongly advise Nissan to hand their car's to aftermarket firms for "tweaking".

 

So what your saying is that a wet lap in the GTR is around 7:50's while a wet lap in the ZR1 is 7:40?

A dry run by a very good driver (with previous experience) should have netted far more than 7:38. Clearly the GTR is not a 7:26 car.

 

Most tests has the GTR as slower than the Porsche GT2 and pretty much all tests has the GTR slower than the CGT much less an Enzo.

Its only logical that a car with more power would benifit on a longer track like the nurburgring where it could stretch its legs.


As for cornering, the GTR and GTR is close together, the GTR has even lost on many instances to the GT2. In order to achieve a 7:26 the GTR would have been going around corners far far far faster than the GT2 (since it cant beat the GT2 in a pure straight up drag race on the main straight). Unfortunately for the Nissan fanbois, a stock GTR hasnt come close to matching its magical 7:26 time (after many many independent tests) whereas tests have gotten the GT2 closer to its manufactuerer time.


Automobile Magazine

2009 Nissan GTR Cornering L/R:
0.99/0.99G
Porsche GT2 Cornering L/R:
1.16/1.17G

Motortrend
Nissan GTR lateral acceleration:
0.97G
Porsche GT2 lateral acceleration:
1.10G

 

I didn't see anything in that post...

What exactly are you trying to point out?

Did you just ignore every post by Guibo and throw this out there?

I would be utterly amused if you addressed his questions before moving the yardstick again...

Because according to your post, the higher hp CCX (because it "could stretch it's legs") should outperform the GT2. Does it?

Are you really going back to hp/weight ratios again? Have you really run out of conspiracy theories?

 

i hope guibo will not get a heart attack.

 

You can't assume the track conditions were the same. What we do know is:
DR Test -
Driver: Chris Harris (journalist and club racer, w/zero experience in racing a powerful AWD car at Nurburgring)
Temperature: 7 degrees C
# of timed laps: 1
Track conditions: damp and oily in numerous places

Autobild Test -
Driver: Sascha Bert (professional race car driver, w/ racing experience in powerful, RWD cars in FIA GT3 and 24 Hours of Nurburgring)
Temperature: ??
# of timed laps: 3-4
Track conditions: slight rain for 1st two laps

Way too many variables to conclude any meaningful comparison, although the ZR1 for sure had the better driver and more valuable laps. Why did he not do better on the 4th lap...?

No, you're missing the point (again!): When the DR report was released, you purposely ignored the conditions and said "Look, the GT-R is SO much slower than claimed; that means Nissan cheated!" Now, we have a report on the ZR1, and it's over 15 seconds slower than GM's claim. Using your logic, monaro, that means GM must have cheated. You can't ignore the obviously deplorable conditions in one test while clinging to the conditions of another test.

Clearly it is. This same driver was beaten by Suzuki by 12 seconds when both were lapping on the same day.
"Previous experience" == "thousands of laps" in the same car?
Was HeavyChevy lying when he said HvS drives at DE pace?

 

Racing a powerful AWD car at the nurburgring? You have never driven on a track to utter that garbage.

BWAHAHAHHAAHAHAH



You are still comparing 1 TEST in the wet that was 15 seconds slower vs several tests for the GT-R that are wet and dry at 21-27 seconds slower. Doesn't mean anything like GM cheated.

 

You're using different track data and peak gs to come to a conclusion. That isn't a valid comparsion. And didn't the LP560 win anyway?

What were the times for each car for the specific laps you're comparing? And if it was in fact 20km/h slower what does the telemetry show at that point?

You can't draw conclusions from a specific, instantaneous measurement on a long track. What if the GT-R driver made an error at that point?

Believing a stock GT-R can outlap far lighter, 600hp+ cars isn't realistic. Funny how only he can do it in a factory car....

 

In those track tests where the Enzo and CGT are faster than the GT-R, they are only fractionally faster on the track (TopGear and Bedford).
I have already provided proof that the GT-R is not as hampered by a long, fast track as you'd think. In fact, it thrives on it. Proven by the R&T track shootout, and supported by Car and Evo. It prefers a faster track like Le Mans or the Nurburgring. And as Harris noted, where there are bumps in conjunction with a braking zone, the GT-R does extremely well. The Nurburgring's long Doettinger Hoehe allows the GT-R's brakes to cool, and it's precisely in the following cornering sections that Suzuki is making up time. Just watch the videos.
Same thing with HvS in the 599 GTB -
1) the Ferrari hit 293 kph on the straight, about as fast as the CGT and 17 kph faster than the GT-R
2) its net speed gain, from Galgenkopf to the end of the straight, was 25 kph higher than the GT-R's, yet
3) it was slower than the GT-R over this final segment than the GT-R: 45.0s vs 43.1s for the Nissan. And that includes Doettinger Hoehe.

Skidpad numbers don't always tell you how a particular car performs on a track. You can put fat gumball R-compounds on a Ford Mustang and pull similar g's to the GT2, but do you think the Mustang will be as fast through the corners on a track? How about if you throw in some bumps mid-corner?
You are saying the GT2, which averages 1.13g vs the GT-R's 0.98g, pulls 15% higher g's than the GT-R. Yet why is not 15% higher in cornering speeds? In the C&D test I posted earlier, the GT-R had higher cornering speeds, and that was with Bridgestones on the car: 76.47 mph vs 75.98 mph for the GT2.
In the Sport Auto supertest, HvS, who has supertested numerous RR Porsches, was only 0.06% faster through the corners in the GT2 than in the GT-R. Through the very fast Fuchsroehre, both cars hit the same speed: 252 kph. What happened there?
In that same C&D test, the Z06 pulled 1.03g compared to 0.96g for the GT-R. Yet look at the cornering speeds for the Z06: 75.33 (vs 76.47 for the GT-R). In the supertests, the GT-R was 1.7% faster than the Z06 in the corners, with the advantage most visibile in the fastest corners. At Klostertal 1, it hit 173 kph where the Z06 was doing 161.

I still think you are still not understanding, monaro. You are comparing ideal GT-R laps against unknown GT2 laps. How do you know that Rohrl, if given thousands of laps and purposefully trying to set a record on a closed track, with good or perfect conditions, would not set a time 5 seconds faster than Suzuki in the GT-R? How do you know this for a fact? Has it happened? Is it unreasonable to assume he would be faster than the 7:29 he set while lapping several cars?

 

So what? When Porsche released their "independent" test, you two were using that as proof that Nissan cheated. Quite obviously, Andy Gulden's time would have been within 21 seconds. The AMuS test was already within 21 seconds, and that's before you subtract the time for the pit straight.
Yes, it does mean GM cheated. You can't ***** about conditions now, when you consciously, purposefully chose to ignore them before.

 

The peak g's, avg speeds, and peak speeds all come from the same track.
The LP560 did win, but largely because it was so much faster than the GT-R on the tighter tracks.
Slow Tracks (Autocross + Streets of Willow)
LP560: 49.75 pts
GT-R: 49.38

Fast Tracks (Willow Springs + Speedway)
LP560: 49.23
GT-R: 49.25

The Nurburgring, being a fast track, verifies that the GT-R isn't always left for dead against lighter and/or more powerful cars: it beats the LP560-4 by 14 seconds.

7:29 for both cars, Suzuki on a closed course, Rohrl with traffic.
They both hit those speeds at the downhill plunge into Tiergarten. 310 for the GT2, 290 for the GT-R.
GM says the Z06 hit 295 kph on the Nurburgring, while Sport Auto showed 270. Hmmm...can you say ringer?

HvS outran 600hp+ cars in the GT-R during its supertest. He was only 3 seconds off the time of the 650-hp RT12, which weighs 200kg's less than the GT-R. And he's driven plenty of RR Porsches, both modified and stock. He is 12 seconds slower than Suzuki, but we have seen him slower by a much larger amount in other cars compared to factory drivers. He was 12s slower than Suzuki when both lapped on Sept 24, 2007 when the track was damp at Kesselchen.

 

By the time Porsche issued that statement HvS and others had already fallen WAY WAY short of Nissan in REAL PRODUCTION GT-R's.



HAHAHAHAHA you are sratching for tenths saying within 21 seconds!!!!!!!!! BUT STILL OVER 20 SECONDS!!!!!!!!!!!

Sport Auto's initial test had two damp sections and you act like it was a torrential downpour. Result 7:50 in a non production car. The GT2 being driven at a lesser percentage of it's potential according to the driver beat the GT-R, IN THE DAMP, by 7 seconds and was still only 16 seconds off the pace. Shortshifted, partial throttle and all. The ZR-1 seems about right when compared to the GT2 considering the conditions.

The GT-R, which should be LESS affected by the wet, still has the biggest deficit in private test data compared to factory. Even with it's: anyone, anytime, anywhere mantra. Doesn't make any sense does it?

Keep talking though, this is rather funny.

 

Way short? HvS was 12 seconds slower than the 7:38 that Suzuki set on the same day. How do you explain that, heavy? Oh, wait. You already did: the driver. HvS laps at DE pace, right?
Who were these "others" you are talking about?

No, not over 20 seconds. Look at what Tom Colonel did between his 1st and 2nd laps in the ACR, with no modifications to the car: 7 seconds dropped. And this is with a seasoned Viper driver at the wheel, who has raced Vipers on the NRing. Why would it be unreasonable to assume that Gulden could knock, say, 7 seconds off his lap time, if he had more than one single lap? Then there is the length of the pits, maybe another 4 seconds right there. Clearly, a racing driver learning a brand new car to him on a single lap of the 'Ring will be affected by the RHD layout of the car: his perspective, sense of balance and sense of the car's extremities will be different. Road works was mentioned; if they didn't mean anything, it wouldn't have been mentioned. So we can see where an easy 11 seconds can be found. 7:51 - 10 = 7:40. That's well within 20 seconds of the 7:26 time.
The AMuS test got 7:47 over the full course. Subtract ~4 seconds for the pit straight, and that's a 7:43. That's well within 20 seconds, and not even counting TENTHS.


Only an idiot would think I act like it's a downpour. I'm saying it's not an optimal test. Are you now claiming that it's optimal? The important thing is to look at the relative performance: Suzuki, driving during the same timeframe, also on Bridgestones, lapped 12 seconds faster than HvS.
Had Chris Harris ever driven a rear-engine Porsche at racing speeds on the 'Ring before? Answer yes or no, heavy.
Also, Harris had one more lap in the GT2 than in the GT-R.

Re: shortshifting
"Exiting the Hatzenbach, the early, technical section of track, I'm short-shifting everywhere. This is partly because I'm unsure whether full-afterburner is possible on the exit of some turns, but also because the car chews through each gear so quickly that, given an option of two-hands-on-the-wheel security and marginally reduced propulsion, I'm staying with it. To give you an idea of its ability to wind on the numbers, even using this early-shift technique heading downhill to Schwedenkreuz (to allow for a few damp patches), the GT2 hits 162 mph. The GT-R, using every last revolution and with its instant gearshift, manages only 157 mph."
Harris reached 98.0% of HvS's speed in the GT2 at Schwedenkreuz, even with short-shifting.
Harris reached 97.2% of HvS's speed in the GT-R.

"Peak speed in the Fuchsroehre
GT2 151.4 mph
GT-R 149.6 mph
Full throttle all the way down in the GT-R, short-shifted in the GT2."
Harris reached 96.7% of HvS's speed in the GT2, even with short-shifting.
Harris reached 95.5% of HvS's speed in the GT-R.


Also, weren't you the one insinuating that the GT-R's Bridgestones have a durometer rating like a genuine MPSC (and not the harder Cup+)? Why are you now choosing to ignore this "fact"? Is it because in 7-degree C weather, it's possible the GT-R would perform worse than the lighter GT2 on Cup+?

"We set out to build a multi-performance supercar accessible to anyone, anytime and anywhere."
Just because the GT-R is 7 seconds slower than the GT2 on the same day with an experienced Porsche driver doesn't mean that slogan doesn't apply. Poor logic again, heavy.

 

Compare Harris's speed to HvS's speed in a 2009 GT-R with Bridgestones and get back to me. You're using HvS's times from a 2010 GT-R with Dunlops.