Im not sure why no independent tests has EVER achieved a 7:40 in the GT3, Porsche must have CHEATED.

Oh hang on a minute...........

 

So again show me the graph indicating that the GTR has only achieved a 276kph in the Nissan 7:27 test. COME ON I HAVE CALLED YOU OUT TO PROVIDE ME WITH THIS DATA ON SEVERAL OCCATIONS!!!!!!!!!

So the GTR's cornering speed isnt as high as the GT3. What sets the GTR apart from other great handling cars if it only has 480hp STOCK? To get a fast lap it must either have better handling and or can eat up the straights better.

 

Nevermind, if a Porsche should crash trying to beat the GTR's time, there's always 'ring rescue:

 

The transmission would probably brake before it reaches the Porsche. Both cars would most likely be towed by a GM car (just like Toyota). At least you still feel special sitting on a broken Porsche.

 

I would use brakes to brake and transmissions to transmit rather than brake. Unless of course they are broken, but that's the breaks.

 

Thanks for that. I never realised that I had to write thesis like posts on forums .

 

I believe that car was sponsored/giving free by Nissan.

 

 

ChevyCountry have slowly been twisting in the wind for 6 months now...sheesh.

 

No other publications has gotten close to Nissan's time.

Clearly its the GTR fanboys who have ran out of excuses, they have used drivers, conditions, time spent and all other excuses imaginable under the sun. The fact remains that a stock GTR has NOT getten anywhere close to Nissan's ringer time.

Clearly Nissan fanboys will hang on with these mythical time, just like the 7:59 R33 GTR time.

 

I wrote an article predicting even the new & improved 2010 Porsche 911 Turbo, with more horsepower and the PDK transmission still won't crack 7:30s at the 'Ring. Further discrediting Nissan. To be published soon...

 

This thread cracks me up. Every third party test can't come within 10 seconds of 7:26, yet Nissan test drivers are able to do it on a whim.

In order to experience the 100% performance of your GTR, factory drivers will now be an option during order.

 

Let's not exaggerate out of ignorance now. One Nissan test driver has been able to do it after familiarizing himself after thousands of laps. You don't think that's good for 10 seconds? 10 seconds for different drivers on different days on a 20km circuit which changes conditions by the hour isn't that big a deal. Look at the time differential with W. Rohrl in the CGT: On different days, he is 11 seconds slower than himself. That's a difference of 2.5% for the same driver/car combination.


To consider what a factory driver can do compared to a mag journalist, notice that professional C5-R racer Andy Pilgrim can set a 1:30.6 at Willow Springs in a Corvette C5 Z06.

For reference, look at what edmunds did on the Willow track:

C6 Z06 - 1:33.04 (2.7% slower than A. Pilgrim in C5 Z06)
Viper coupe (500 hp) - 1:33.30
Ford GT - 1:32.45


C&D drivers did the following at the Willow big track:

997 Turbo - 1:38.53
Audi R8 - 1:35.76 (5.7% slower than A. Pilgrim)


R&T @ Willow:

C6 Z06 - 1:31.8 (1.3% slower than A. Pilgrim in C5 Z06)
SRT-10 Coupe (500 hp) - 1:33.1


Steve Millen, who was accused of favoring Nissan in the R&T test, didn't beat Pilgrim's time, even with the GT-R on Dunlops
1:31.23 (0.7% slower than A. Pilgrim)

Taking these lap times in a vaccum, either
a) a stock C5 Z06 is faster than a C6 Z06, 997 Turbo, R8, GT-R, or
b) the C5 Z06 that Andy Pilgrim drove was modified.

But why should we look at lap times in a vacuum? Isn't it more reasonable to consider that Andy Pilgrim is an experienced C5-R racer, street Corvette-based racer, and C5 street car development driver?
"Street Corvettes – When the 1997 C5 Corvette production car was in its development process, Andy became the only non-GM employee ever hired as a test driver. He was one of the GM factory drivers on hand at Mid-Ohio for the press launch of the revolutionary Corvette C5-ZO6 in 2000. He remained on the test driving team through the C6 model development process in 2004."


Difference between HvS and Suzuki: 2.7% ("quite close" -- Horst von Saurma)
Difference between HvS and Porsche engineer in the Turbo: 3.0%
Difference between HvS and Magnussen (C6): ~4.7% w/equal starts
Difference between HvS and Magnussen (Z06): ~2.6% (as if your typical Z06 customer is going to extract 100% of the Z06's outright ability on a road course after 3 flying laps )

 

Guibo, your useless compilations of magazine articles leaves out very important details.

#1 Mag editors are not track experts. Not one driver in the lineup you mentioned can hold a stick to HvS who happens to be a writer, but races all the time.

#2 You just leave out all of the factors in the difference in Walter Rohls time, as if the conditions were the same and he was even pushing the same each lap, or leaving out the fact that it was a warmup lap, or early timed lap, in which ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY DRIVES WOULD KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

#3 Andy Pilgrim is a factory Driver and will drive circles around ANY non pro or VERY advanced amatuer all day.

#4 We already know Millen sucks in RWD cars, and some of those times you posted are his.

#5 We've also shown you spec Boxsters running times similar to the mag times which is pathetic.


Bottom line:

What we DO know is that drivers that are AS GOOD OR BETTER than Suzuki have driven the GT-R on the ring and not come even close. The same cannot be said for Andy Pilgrim's C5Z test.

 

Sorry I won't talk with someone who off the bat starts with such an aggressive comment.

Have a good day.