Nissan GTRForum for the R32, R33, R34 and R35 "Godzilla"
Welcome to 6SpeedOnline.com!
Welcome to 6SpeedOnline.com.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join 6SpeedOnline.com today!
So if all those cars can pull those G's then the GTR must be making it's time up from somewhere else.
Yes maybe it really is faster in the turns compared to other high horsepower cars that have a problem because of traction. This is where it is gaining ground. Not because it running 10psi more that stock. This has been proven with other cars that have more HP against others that put the power down with less HP.
Same old crap, different thread
PEACE
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on 6SpeedOnline!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
2009 Nissan GTR Super Silver
2008 IS-F Star Fire Pearl /Black
2004 E55 AMG Sold
2001 ML55 AMG Sold
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo(Modified 800rwhp) Sold
So if all those cars can pull those G's then the GTR must be making it's time up from somewhere else.
Not really. Look at those g figures again: the GT-R's are higher than those of the other cars. The Sport Auto Z06 peaked at 1.35g. In the same corner, the GT-R peaked at 1.45g.
But, as per usual, you've totally missed the point:
In Nissan's telemetry, their car averaged about 1.3g from corner to corner, with a peak of 1.4g. People like you were saying this could only have been possible with racing slicks! Well, Sport Auto recorded pretty much the same g readings: 1.25-1.45g on a production GT-R with treaded Dunlop runflats. The theory of racing slicks, like that of power/wt, has been thoroughly disembowled, dragged through the dirt, and tossed in the garbage, where it belongs with all of the other hair-brained conspiracy theories.
"from somewhere else"...
Are you implying that Sport Auto's GT-R must have had 693 bhp (like you were spreading all over the 'net last year, LOL) to beat the 599 and Z06? It's incredible that you are still saying this with all of the evidence in front of you. There are plenty of good reasons why the GT-R can be faster than those cars, as has been proven time and time again in various tests, and explained to you many, many times as well.
I'd also might at that the Driver Republic video of Harris driving is like night and day compared to this one. Two TOTALLY different approaches.
Sorry Monaro, but you fail.
Exactly. It is the driver, as many of us more level headed forum users have been pointing out. Not 693 horsepower, racing slicks, stripped out car etc etc....that makes the GT-R go so quickly. Look at a competent driver, Chris Harris, with little seat time, and smaller gonads, drive his lap in the GT-R. Now watch Suzuki-san. That is the main difference. I would love to see video of HVS driving the GT-R to compare on his 7:38 run. I think you would find that he too was missing at least half a testicle.
Good vid, you can appreciate the 2 different approach to speed. ZR1 is classic slow in, fast out. And just monster on the straight. GTR is fast in, fast out. And it carries more speed through turns, which leads to faster exit speed. It is interesting to see the different lines they took also.
Pretty much confirms what we saw in the telemetry they released last year.
1st "290 kph moment" coincides with a jump in the crest near Schwedenkreuz. Actual vehicle speed is more like 268-269 kph (ZR1: 274). People with a figure of 693bhp on their minds were reading that chart all wrong.
290 kph on the straight? No way. Fastest speed (highest revs in 6th) reached is after the kink. It comes at the plunge into Tiergarten. Same as with the ZR1 and GT2.
Were we watching the same video? The video I saw didnt even have the clearly visible speedo. Im sure that like other previous tries only Nissan can come close to achieving this fantastic time.
I wonder why Suzuki never won F1, if he was indeed so much faster than everyone else. I also wonder why HvS never got close to Suzuki's time, afterall he should be one of the very best around the Nurburgring.
Were we watching the same video? The video I saw didnt even have the clearly visible speedo. Im sure that like other previous tries only Nissan can come close to achieving this fantastic time.
You can get a decent estimate of the speed based on the rev counter and what gear he's in. As if the sudden spike in Nissan's telemetry wasn't a good enough indication of wheelspin, LOL. Do you have any idea of what it takes to hit 290 kph @ Schwedenkreuz? If this GT-R hit 290 there, it should have decimated the ZR1 and all others on every other straight, but it didn't.
From Hocheichen through Schwedenkreuz, the ZR1 pulls out 0.3s, even including the kink at Flugplatz. If it is 0.3s faster than the GT-R through here, and ends with a peak speed of 274 kph, how is it possible that the GT-R could be slower and yet reach a peak speed 16 kph higher? Face it, man. The GT-R did NOT hit 290 there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monaroCountry
I wonder why Suzuki never won F1, if he was indeed so much faster than everyone else. I also wonder why HvS never got close to Suzuki's time, afterall he should be one of the very best around the Nurburgring.
Which other Formula One driver has driven the GT-R around the Nordschleife after thousands of laps?
HvS is one of the best, but he's not driving at 10/10ths. I'll use a quote from heavychevy : "For anyone who tracks, the things I mentioned are the BIGGEST FACTORS FOR ANY TIMED LAP.
#1) Who's driving You cant compare sport auto times to manufacturer times, because the test criteria is different. Driver familiarity can make a difference of several seconds.
#2) For what Criteria You cant compare a DE to a Time Trial or Qualifying lap. What Horst does is more like a test DE Lap, but if you expect him to be anywhere near what Suzuki or Nissans test drivers ran in the GT-R then you're foolish, Point is the situation in which the car is being tested means everything.
#3) What conditions Obviously Sport Auto tests too many cars to wait for perfect conditions which are VERY rare at the ring to test every car, so cars are tested in less than optimal conditions.
#4) Setup In addition, Sport Auto does not spend weeks, months and in the case of the GT-R years trying to get a best time, so there is no way they will match the time, they dont test for optimal tire pressures suspension settings, or anything. Just get in and go."
And in case you forgot, HvS also ran 16 seconds slower than GM in the C6 Corvette.
- 6 seconds slower than Magnussen in the Z06.
- 7 seconds slower than Chris Harris in the Murcielago.
- 7 seconds slower than Giorgio Sanna in the LP640.
- 12 seconds slower than Klaus Ludwig in the SLR.
- 14 seconds slower than Klaus Ludwig in the Mercedes CLK DTM AMG.
- 12 seconds slower than Suzuki when both were on partially damp tracks, likely on the same day as well (same day Nissan set 7:38 in 2007).
- 11 seconds slower than Frank Stippler in an Audi RS4.
- 6 seconds slower in an Audi R8 with ceramics and R-compounds than Frank Stippler in an Audi RS4.
- 12 seconds slower than Motoharu Kurosawa in the NSX-R.
Being among the best =/= being the fastest in a particular car.
Maybe if you put down the crack pipe, things will start to look slower?
CharlieBrown strikes back, im sure that you along with all other people who believe that a stock base GTR can achieve a similar time as an Enzo around the ring has had a go at that pipe
Good post Guibo. I dont have an ax to grind as I love both cars. In cases unsolvable like this, I really wish it was possible for someone to buy a GTR off the lot, and same day, immediately let Suzuki run it around the Ring, as is, no prep. That time I believe would settle this mess. Pipe dream however.
Edit: Just looked at that vid and I can see why some wonder about the GTR. It was pretty much right there on that long straight. I did count about 1-2 second advantage for the ZR1 for most of the lap, up until the highlighted apparent mishap by Mero, which pulled the GTR right back up to the ZR1's time. This is hardly scientific analysis but just like the ZR1/ACR mashup you can kinda draw some conclusions. The GTR if nothing else is a great thread topic starter lol.
Last edited by snakebitten; 07-09-2009 at 04:03 PM.
Undeniable proof in the Z-R1 vs GTR video has been put forth and has now forced Monaro to cross into total insane fan-boy induced unabashed hypocrisy.
From now on ANY argument Monaro comes up with has zero ground to stand on and is just for the sake of not admitting he was wrong this entire time (although I suspect he saw the writing on the wall some time ago).
Just leave Monaro be in his hysterical "I see can see ghost, I tell you, GHOST!" denials. To argue any further with him would be submerging yourself in the comic book fantasy world Monaro thrives in.
Edit: Just looked at that vid and I can see why some wonder about the GTR. It was pretty much right there on that long straight. I did count about 1-2 second advantage for the ZR1 for most of the lap, up until the highlighted apparent mishap by Mero, which pulled the GTR right back up to the ZR1's time.
The ZR1 had a strong headwind on the straight. Even still, it was faster from the 1st overhead banner to the 2nd overhead (bridge) than the GT-R.
Suzuki made up 0.65 second from the downhill compression through to the final corner.
That 1-2 second advantage for the ZR1 for most of the lap is largely due to the different timing points; Nissan started timing earlier than GM. By the time they both get to the same point just before the straight, the exit @ Galgenkopf, the ZR1 is actually ahead by only 0.55s, if you subtract the 0.63s from the GT-R for equal starting points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snakebitten
I really wish it was possible for someone to buy a GTR off the lot, and same day, immediately let Suzuki run it around the Ring, as is, no prep. That time I believe would settle this mess.
Would be tough to break it in properly in only 1 day. Would you hold the ACR to the same standard of no prep?
I don't think it's necessary. We already see where HvS is slower than other factory drivers. We have already seen that he was 12 seconds slower than Suzuki on the same day back in 2007. Sport Auto's GT-R returned a 0-200 time of 13.1 seconds. This is on par with what a customer GT-R would do. The Sport Auto GT-R also returned 1.25-1.45 g's on the Ring, which is also about the same as what Nissan's car did (1.3-1.4).
The ZR1 had a strong headwind on the straight. Even still, it was faster from the 1st overhead banner to the 2nd overhead (bridge) than the GT-R.
Suzuki made up 0.65 second from the downhill compression through to the final corner.
That 1-2 second advantage for the ZR1 for most of the lap is largely due to the different timing points; Nissan started timing earlier than GM. By the time they both get to the same point just before the straight, the exit @ Galgenkopf, the ZR1 is actually ahead by only 0.55s, if you subtract the 0.63s from the GT-R for equal starting points.
Makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guibo
Would be tough to break it in properly in only 1 day. Would you hold the ACR to the same standard of no prep?
I don't think it's necessary. We already see where HvS is slower than other factory drivers. We have already seen that he was 12 seconds slower than Suzuki on the same day back in 2007. Sport Auto's GT-R returned a 0-200 time of 13.1 seconds. This is on par with what a customer GT-R would do. The Sport Auto GT-R also returned 1.25-1.45 g's on the Ring, which is also about the same as what Nissan's car did (1.3-1.4).
A lightly broken in Demo model all the while saving a few bucks As for the ACR? The GTR has Race mode electronic suspension selection which firms up the suspension also lots of cars have active electronic aero so I dont see why the ACR couldnt tweak its manually adjusted suspension and aero.
What I was really meaning to get across though was the absense of computer tweaks, tire changes etc that dont come factory stock as many believe Nissan did to achieve these times. Doing such an idealistic test as I surmised would remove the "Nissan did this and that" from the equation so the results to "most" [maybe not Monaro] everyone would at least appear above reproach.
Last edited by snakebitten; 07-09-2009 at 06:15 PM.
A few things that need to be taken into account are the following:
1) He doesn't lift before the crest at the Schwedenkreuz (that takes balls at that speed). My friend and I were in his tuned 911 Turbo, and we hit that point at an indicated Porsche digital readout of 272kmh (which means we were actually going a bit slower), and this resulted in the car actually leaving the ground, missing the braking point going off into the grass, and us hitting and damaging 13 meters of Armco (which is quite expensive). People who haven't driven the Ring themselves have no idea how scary and dangerous that section is. The way Suzuki drove that section was amazing.
2) Look how he literally throws the car into the Karussell. Its obvious that the GT-R needs to be manhandled rather than finessed into turns.
3) He drives flat out through Antoniusbuche (left hand kink after the Dottinger Hohe and before Tiergarten). Most people lift before hand.
The guy has balls of titanium. To really appreciate his efforts, everyone should go drive the Ring themselves. Playing it on a Playstation is NOTHING like the real thing. All the camber changes, elevation changes, compressions, climate changes, slippery areas, etc. etc.
One of these days we should organize a 6speed field trip there.
__________________
"Ahhh... the thrill of driving... there is nothing else like it"
A few things that need to be taken into account are the following:
1) He doesn't lift before the crest at the Schwedenkreuz (that takes balls at that speed). My friend and I were in his tuned 911 Turbo, and we hit that point at an indicated Porsche digital readout of 272kmh (which means we were actually going a bit slower), and this resulted in the car actually leaving the ground, missing the braking point going off into the grass, and us hitting and damaging 13 meters of Armco (which is quite expensive). People who haven't driven the Ring themselves have no idea how scary and dangerous that section is. The way Suzuki drove that section was amazing.
2) Look how he literally throws the car into the Karussell. Its obvious that the GT-R needs to be manhandled rather than finessed into turns.
3) He drives flat out through Antoniusbuche (left hand kink after the Dottinger Hohe and before Tiergarten). Most people lift before hand.
The guy has balls of titanium. To really appreciate his efforts, everyone should go drive the Ring themselves. Playing it on a Playstation is NOTHING like the real thing. All the camber changes, elevation changes, compressions, climate changes, slippery areas, etc. etc.
One of these days we should organize a 6speed field trip there.
Since youve experienced the Nurburgring, do you believe Suzuki achieved the time 7.26.7 in the GT-R?
Obvious that he drove a GTR, just not obvious through videos that he drove a stock one.
Please dont make this into Suzuki balls versus the world balls. Fact is that Suzuki is just an average drivers compared to the hundreds doing auto testing.
As for the ACR? The GTR has Race mode electronic suspension selection which firms up the suspension also lots of cars have active electronic aero so I dont see why the ACR couldnt tweak its manually adjusted suspension and aero.
Linear Mode
