2010 Porsche 911 Turbo Laps Nurburgring 10 Seconds Faster than Predecessor

[heavychevy]

Back on topic: The new Turbo sounds awesome, but I don't think it will be as rewarding to drive as a manual. Def. more potent in stock form, but less interesting to me for some reason (and no it's not the motor). I don't like paddle shifters for the track and that will never change. Interested to see what the Manual does in comparison in the future.

This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on 6SpeedOnline!

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by heavychevy

Not going to bother pointing out any more errors in your piece-meal extra long responses with no substance to them. This post is running over with fallacy's of mis-comprehension and butchered information. But I'm going to leave you to your vices.

There are no errors. Anyone with even a vaguely scientific mind could clearly see that the conditions of the DR test were nothing like what Nissan had. And one of the most significant variables, the driver, is not removed from the equation.
How is thinking that the facelifted Turbo can achieve a 7:27 a vice? It's pretty obvious why you can't answer such a simple question, as to whether the Turbo is capable of such a time: you, Porsche, and just about every other doubter of Nissan's 'Ring times have painted yourselves into a corner. By the sheer Newtonian physics of the only 2 vehicle parameters that ever apply to a twisting racetrack (power and mass), any claim for the updated Turbo equalling or bettering a GT2/CGT is, by default, impossible. Porsche's 911 product chief said so himself.

[EtherSpill]

Originally Posted by Guibo

There are no errors. Anyone with even a vaguely scientific mind could clearly see that the conditions of the DR test were nothing like what Nissan had. And one of the most significant variables, the driver, is not removed from the equation.

While it's true that DR did not replicate what Nissan did (who the hell is going to, for that matter?), their test provided a nice reality check.

Originally Posted by Guibo

How is thinking that the facelifted Turbo can achieve a 7:27 a vice? It's pretty obvious why you can't answer such a simple question, as to whether the Turbo is capable of such a time: you, Porsche, and just about every other doubter of Nissan's 'Ring times have painted yourselves into a corner. By the sheer Newtonian physics of the only 2 vehicle parameters that ever apply to a twisting racetrack (power and mass), any claim for the updated Turbo equalling or bettering a GT2/CGT is, by default, impossible. Porsche's 911 product chief said so himself.

Yes, let's all throw ourselves on our swords because the sanctimonious one hath bloviated. Hopefully when Nissan is done teaching Porsche basic Newtonian physics, "what vehicle parameters apply on a twisting racetrack", and how to drive the Nurburgring, they have time to let Porsche teach them how to design a transmission that doesn't break when using launch control, a transmission that doesn't limp the car after a few hot laps, and an engine that doesn't malfunction during a top speed run (see AMS's latest Nardo test).

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by EtherSpill

While it's true that DR did not replicate what Nissan did (who the hell is going to, for that matter?), their test provided a nice reality check.

If no one bothers to replicate what Nissan did, then we have no basis to invoke the "scientific method" and calling out Nissan for cheating. A nice reality check? What reality check did we need to know that a GT-R, in very different conditions and with only 1 flying timed lap by a driver who had never driven the car on that track prior to the test, would be that far off the pace from a driver with far more experience in the car and much better conditions?
Seems to me that the reality check is on Porsche drivers: Chris Harris, in those rather dismal conditions and with only 1 flying timed lap and the slower Bridgestones, was already within 2 seconds of Porsche's top 'Ring aces who, if we are to believe they really tried, tested the GT-R under the same conditions as Nissan (after thousands of laps, in perfect weather, with no mistakes in any corners).

[eclou]

Keep in mind that the N-rated Michelin Pilot Sport Cups have been reformulated again in the Porsche sizes. I just happened to stumble upon that looking at the Tire Rack site. The old Cup Sports were not much grippier than a PS2. The new ones may be closer to the real Pilot Cups (18 inchers). It may explain the 7.39 vs 7.27 results

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by USCCayman

I do have a doctorate, with emphasis on research, measurement and statistics. From a major land grant university in the U.S. So I do know what I am talking about. Bottom line is, if you make a claim that no one else can replicate, you loose. That is the scientific method. Nissan fails the test. When someone gets hold of a GTR that is not supplied by Nissan, it is unable to run the ring anywhere close to Nissan's ringer. That is a good basis for making an accusation.

First of all, If you really have a doctorate in research, measurement and statistics like you claim you do, then you would know that comparisons with Nissan's ring time with those of independent testers cannot be done for the simple reason that there are too many uncontrolled variables happening such as different driver, different day, different conditions etc etc etc to form any reasonable and accurate conclusion.
Second, I have a degree in Law so I do know what I'm talking about too. Like i said in my previous reply to your post - accusations without proof has no place in ANY argument or debate. Do you think that that is a fair comment? Please answer this question.
If you accuse someone of firing a gun - you need to provide the proof, such as the bullet, finger prints etc.
If you accuse someone of rape - you need to provide evidence in the form of DNA etc
If you accuse someone of lying - you need a recording.

My point is that, If you accuse Nissan of cheating - you need to supply the data, and so far, neither you or any one on earth have submitted any irrefutable or intelligible evidence that points to the contrary.

Ever heard of, "Innocent until proven guilty?"


No offense to you, but for a person with a doctorate on research, measurement and statistics - you are very close minded and ignorant.

[rvhpno80]

i could fit someone on the passenger side, but not behind me, definitely some discomfort there, if a person would sit behind. Hey at least you have a option though.

[justinmm2]

If the arguments get more heated and directed at users, not cars, this thread will find itself closed..

[davesfo]

amazing car. and i hear they will actually have paddles as a option?

[heavychevy]

Originally Posted by Guibo

There are no errors. Anyone with even a vaguely scientific mind could clearly see that the conditions of the DR test were nothing like what Nissan had. And one of the most significant variables, the driver, is not removed from the equation.
How is thinking that the facelifted Turbo can achieve a 7:27 a vice? It's pretty obvious why you can't answer such a simple question, as to whether the Turbo is capable of such a time: you, Porsche, and just about every other doubter of Nissan's 'Ring times have painted yourselves into a corner. By the sheer Newtonian physics of the only 2 vehicle parameters that ever apply to a twisting racetrack (power and mass), any claim for the updated Turbo equalling or bettering a GT2/CGT is, by default, impossible. Porsche's 911 product chief said so himself.

No einstein, I'm just not going to jump on speculated times from unconfirmed sources. I completely believe it's possible, but before I address it, I'll wait until it's confirmed or at least some other tests to see how it compares to other vehicles.

You on the other hand are saying Porsche claimed 10 seconds over 7:38 so 7:27 is probable but then say it's impossible. Are you saving yourself room for an escape clause or what? You are clearly contradicting yourself as usual.

Link to quote of product chief saying TT beating GT2 is impossible........ Whether or not it's possible is not the question because it is, whether or not Porsche would put the effort into doing it or making an official claim about however is in question. That is where my doubt comes in.

[911TurboS2]

Can't we all just get along? These are all great cars, and bragging rights about 'ring times are just that. Replication of other's findings make be a standard in scientific research, but it seems here that there are too many variables...As someone said before, these times are primarily used for marketing purposes.

PhD, PhD, MD, MBA, MS....All it does it make me more humble in forums like these.

[USCCayman]

Originally Posted by Quentin

First of all, If you really have a doctorate in research, measurement and statistics like you claim you do, then you would know that comparisons with Nissan's ring time with those of independent testers cannot be done for the simple reason that there are too many uncontrolled variables happening such as different driver, different day, different conditions etc etc etc to form any reasonable and accurate conclusion.
Second, I have a degree in Law so I do know what I'm talking about too. Like i said in my previous reply to your post - accusations without proof has no place in ANY argument or debate. Do you think that that is a fair comment? Please answer this question.
If you accuse someone of firing a gun - you need to provide the proof, such as the bullet, finger prints etc.
If you accuse someone of rape - you need to provide evidence in the form of DNA etc
If you accuse someone of lying - you need a recording.

My point is that, If you accuse Nissan of cheating - you need to supply the data, and so far, neither you or any one on earth have submitted any irrefutable or intelligible evidence that points to the contrary.

Ever heard of, "Innocent until proven guilty?"


No offense to you, but for a person with a doctorate on research, measurement and statistics - you are very close minded and ignorant.

The Driver's Republic comparison was done with conditions as close as you will get. In fact, I believe they were slightly better when the GTR ran. Chris Harris, who is a better driver than any of us said he could not see how a stock GTR would go much faster, in other words doubting what Nissan claimed. He had an excellent basis for accusation. Although you can't control for all variables, you have had several drivers under differing conditions unable to come anywhere close to Suzuki's time. Their times, even under those differing conditions, are similar to each other, but very different from Suzuki's. That's enough to cause one to have doubts. We are not accusing any one of murder here, so I don't think we need to apply the standards of law to realize that something stinks here. And the smell is coming form Nissan's camp.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by heavychevy

I completely believe it's possible, but before I address it, I'll wait until it's confirmed or at least some other tests to see how it compares to other vehicles.

And yet you believe Porsche set a 7:38 in the pre-facelifted Turbo even though 2 separate tests by HvS (with flying timed laps per the supertest norm) showed that time is not possible. A third test by Auto Motor und Sport not only refutes Porsche's time, but shows definitively that in same day testing on the 'Ring, the GT-R is faster at the hands of test drivers who definitely know how to drive Porsches.

Originally Posted by heavychevy

You on the other hand are saying Porsche claimed 10 seconds over 7:38 so 7:27 is probable but then say it's impossible. Are you saving yourself room for an escape clause or what? You are clearly contradicting yourself as usual.

Actually I'm not. Go see my first post in this thread. I believe the 7:27 time for the updated Turbo is possible. But in order to believe this 7:27 time, you can't possibly simultaneously believe Porsche's reasons as to why the GT-R is incapable of the time that it set...(explained in a moment)...

Originally Posted by heavychevy

Link to quote of product chief saying TT beating GT2 is impossible........

...not TT but we can make some inferences based on his doubt of the GT-R time:
"The Nissan is a good car. I don't want to make anything bad with my words. It's a very consistent car. But this car is about 20 kilos heavier than the Turbo . . ."

Aside from using a knackered and misaligned GT-R as we discussed in the other thread, his basis for doubting the GT-R's time rests on a mere difference of 20kg. As if a dual-clutch transmission, superior AWD system to the pre-updated Turbo, and a driver with near limitless resources and thousands of laps can't make up a difference of 20kg. Now, we have the updated Turbo, which weighs ~150kg more than the GT2 and has 20 fewer hp. How can anyone possibly believe that a GT2-matching or -beating time of 7:27 is possible, if they so readily subscribe to Porsche's contention that technology cannot possibly even the score when the difference (according to Porsche) was a mere 20kg? Using Porsche's own reasoning, you and others should be questioning Porsche's claims about the new Turbo being 10s faster than the old (7:38) with the same vehemence with which you denounced Nissan as cheaters.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by USCCayman

The Driver's Republic comparison was done with conditions as close as you will get.

Wrong, they are pretty far apart. DR even noted:
"This was never going to be an exact exercise. The track wasn't completely dry, the ambient temperature was 7C, and we didn't have the luxury of successive flying laps.
Arranging this exercise in November and expecting anything like useable track conditions is a bit like inviting R. Meaden around for tea and expecting that the biscuit jar avoids a heavy assault."

In the commentary to the article, Jethro Bovingdon wrote:
"I would say 90-percent of the track was dry – but still cold and clearly not running as fast as it might in the summer (without leaves compressed into the track etc)."

DR co-founder Steve Davies:
"But as you can see from the feature we were less concerned with finding the absolute fastest lap, but more in understanding how each car would have performed relative to the other around sections of the track that we know very well.
we never set out to achieve an ‘outright’ fastest possible time around the ‘ring, otherwise we would never have attempted this test in November."

Not only were conditions nowhere near the same, but the test methodology were not remotely the same. Suzuki has thousands of laps in the GT-R in the 'Ring, and the luxury of countless flying timed laps, and he set his fastest laps with stability controls disabled. Harris had never been in the GT-R on the 'Ring prior to this test, he had only a single flying timed lap with a warmup (2 prior laps were done when the track was soaking wet), and he drove with stability systems enabled.
That's not a scientific test at all, and any such test to determine whether Nissan's cars were ringers would never stand rigorous scrutiny.

And as for Harris being closer in the GT2, well what exactly was Harris doing only a couple of days before the test? That's right: racing around the 'Ring in a rear-engined Porsche.

[EtherSpill]

Originally Posted by Guibo

I believe the 7:27 time for the updated Turbo is possible. But in order to believe this 7:27 time, you can't possibly simultaneously believe Porsche's reasons as to why the GT-R is incapable of the time that it set...(explained in a moment)...

So the only reason you're speculating the new Turbo can crack the 7:30 mark is to troll for a response you can use to prop up the GT-R and put down Porsche. Got it.

Originally Posted by Guibo

...not TT but we can make some inferences

So you don't have a quote. You're just distorting something he said.

Originally Posted by Guibo

Aside from using a knackered and misaligned GT-R

According to a "Nissan source".

Originally Posted by Guibo

as we discussed in the other thread, his basis for doubting the GT-R's time rests on a mere difference of 20kg.

Did you ever stop for a second and consider that the "20kg" difference might have been a typo where a "0" got dropped? Are you that biased that you honestly believe the 911's product chief doesn't know the weight difference between the GT-R and the Turbo? Seriously, you make up something he never said about the TT and the GT2, then you launch into a rant over what clearly is either a typo or mis-statement by him in regards to the weight difference. Just unbelievable.