Edmunds 911 Turbo BEATS GT-R 0-60, 1/4 Mile
#1
05-07-2008, 09:33 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550 
Edmunds 911 Turbo BEATS GT-R 0-60, 1/4 Mile
I debated about whether to add this to the plethora of other threads instead of making you guys eyes bleed with another GT-R thread, but I figured if there are threads about when the TT loses, there should be ones about when it wins.
If you recall the edmunds test from months ago, done in Japan at sea level, the fanboys wanted to say the GT-R beat the Turbo because the same mag tested it. Well I said that it wasnt a realistic comparison since the Turbo was tested @ 1500 ft of feet of elevation (in Vegas) and the GT-R at sea level.
Well I was right. Not only that, but when they tested the GT-R in the states, they tested in Cali and not their test facility in Nevada where they tested the TT. Their facilit in Cali is a little over 100 (YES 100) feet of elevation. So the TT was still at a disadvantage and won.!!!!!!!!
Well when inside line tested here look at what they said.
Funny how they dont mention these rolling start 0-60's in the original story. They also dont note what other cars they have tested under these circumstances, the Turbo was tested a long time ago so I doubt it was tested in this manner yet they still try to compare the times as if it were. And they neglect to mention the TT ran 11.4 0-60 and is therefore faster there too.
I'm sorry, but this car has media fraud written all over it.
So now we've taken down one myth, the GT-R is NOT faster than a 911Turbo certainly not in every way, and not in a straight line (not even equal to 1/4 mile, the TT has still ACTUALLY ran an 11.4 and the GT-R 11.6 And when we get someone to test the TT properly along side at the road course, it will be proven on the track as well. That goes for the Z06 and GT3 too
My apologies for this, but it needed to be said. I wont post again in this threadto keep it short and sweet because I know the fanboys will argue.
If you recall the edmunds test from months ago, done in Japan at sea level, the fanboys wanted to say the GT-R beat the Turbo because the same mag tested it. Well I said that it wasnt a realistic comparison since the Turbo was tested @ 1500 ft of feet of elevation (in Vegas) and the GT-R at sea level.
Well I was right. Not only that, but when they tested the GT-R in the states, they tested in Cali and not their test facility in Nevada where they tested the TT. Their facilit in Cali is a little over 100 (YES 100) feet of elevation. So the TT was still at a disadvantage and won.!!!!!!!!
Well when inside line tested here look at what they said.
Originally Posted by edmunds
On a warm, sunny day at our Southern California testing facility, our Super Silver Nissan GT-R finds a little more traction than the Solid Red JDM-spec car we tested on the bumpy airstrip in Japan. With launch control engaged, it hits 60 mph in 3.5 seconds (or 3.2 seconds with one foot of rollout like on an NHRA drag strip), while the Japanese GT-R needed 3.6 seconds (or 3.3 seconds with rollout).
Our U.S.-spec R35 loses its edge over the JDM GT-R by the quarter-mile mark, though. It runs an 11.7-second quarter-mile at 116.8 mph, while the Japanese car goes through in 11.6 seconds at 120.9 mph. Note that these latest numbers reflect our transition to reporting NHRA-style trap speed, which is the average of a car's speed over the last 66 feet of the quarter-mile
Our U.S.-spec R35 loses its edge over the JDM GT-R by the quarter-mile mark, though. It runs an 11.7-second quarter-mile at 116.8 mph, while the Japanese car goes through in 11.6 seconds at 120.9 mph. Note that these latest numbers reflect our transition to reporting NHRA-style trap speed, which is the average of a car's speed over the last 66 feet of the quarter-mile
Funny how they dont mention these rolling start 0-60's in the original story. They also dont note what other cars they have tested under these circumstances, the Turbo was tested a long time ago so I doubt it was tested in this manner yet they still try to compare the times as if it were. And they neglect to mention the TT ran 11.4 0-60 and is therefore faster there too.
I'm sorry, but this car has media fraud written all over it.
So now we've taken down one myth, the GT-R is NOT faster than a 911Turbo certainly not in every way, and not in a straight line (not even equal to 1/4 mile, the TT has still ACTUALLY ran an 11.4 and the GT-R 11.6 And when we get someone to test the TT properly along side at the road course, it will be proven on the track as well. That goes for the Z06 and GT3 too
My apologies for this, but it needed to be said. I wont post again in this threadto keep it short and sweet because I know the fanboys will argue.
Last edited by heavychevy; 05-07-2008 at 10:08 AM.
#2
05-07-2008, 09:37 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550
Wait sorry, I do have one more post.
Note the closing comments from edmunds.
This only tells me he didnt have a choice but to write some of what he wrote coming from Japan.
Either way, better than a 911 Turbo? BETTER RETHINK THAT
OK I'm done, enjoy.
Note the closing comments from edmunds.
Originally Posted by edmunds
Best Car Ever?
Depending on your drive to work, you might have some words for Nissan about the GT-R's ride quality. There's a center-stack switch for adjusting the Bilstein adaptive dampers, and after bludgeoning our first expansion joint, we waste no time selecting "Comf." But comf never comes. We can't detect any change in the damping at all.
There I said it. I've come clean. The holy grail of new performance cars, the great Nissan GT-R, isn't my thing. Man, what a load off my chest.
Then there's the hooligan factor. Sometimes having a fast car isn't only about speed. Sometimes it's about fun. And the GT-R, with its very sophisticated all-wheel-drive system, gets a big fat zero in this category. Powerslides and burnouts aren't really in the GT-R's vocabulary. Sure, it's fun to use its launch mode and leave the world behind, but most of the time I'd rather shave a little life off my rear tires.
Depending on your drive to work, you might have some words for Nissan about the GT-R's ride quality. There's a center-stack switch for adjusting the Bilstein adaptive dampers, and after bludgeoning our first expansion joint, we waste no time selecting "Comf." But comf never comes. We can't detect any change in the damping at all.
There I said it. I've come clean. The holy grail of new performance cars, the great Nissan GT-R, isn't my thing. Man, what a load off my chest.
Then there's the hooligan factor. Sometimes having a fast car isn't only about speed. Sometimes it's about fun. And the GT-R, with its very sophisticated all-wheel-drive system, gets a big fat zero in this category. Powerslides and burnouts aren't really in the GT-R's vocabulary. Sure, it's fun to use its launch mode and leave the world behind, but most of the time I'd rather shave a little life off my rear tires.
This only tells me he didnt have a choice but to write some of what he wrote coming from Japan.
Either way, better than a 911 Turbo? BETTER RETHINK THAT
OK I'm done, enjoy.
Last edited by heavychevy; 05-07-2008 at 10:06 AM.
#3
05-07-2008, 09:40 AM
Not to mention that with Porsche's OWN testing and results, most people are not aware that Porsche uses a 0-61 mph calculation (since it's 0-100km/hr that they are testing in Germany) and further, specifically, that they have TWO ~ yes ~ TWO full grown men in the car since realistically, the car probably has a passenger. Lastly, the car is tested with 1/2 tank of gas in it, and it's not running on *vapors* like so many people do when considering their own 0-60 times. Who's FASTEST? Certainly not a Porsche (GT5000 Kit or whatever) so for just FAST it stands to reason that a tubbed drag car with a 2000HP big block and a huffer on top running alcohol would do it. You can run 8's all day long for around $75,000.00 and keep the Porsche for the opera, fine dining, the track, (if you're a decent driver you'll probably kick virtually everyone's a** with a simple ECU flash and some decent tires) and oh yes.... you can STILL drive it to work and no one will give you sh*t for having some stupid ridiculous WING on the back of your car. LOL!
The argument is pretty pointless anyway. I (personally) wouldn't be caught DEAD in a Nissan, Mazda, or Honda of any kind. It comes down to style. I like Porsche.
The argument is pretty pointless anyway. I (personally) wouldn't be caught DEAD in a Nissan, Mazda, or Honda of any kind. It comes down to style. I like Porsche.
Last edited by SpeedYellow; 05-07-2008 at 09:46 AM.
Trending Topics
#8
05-07-2008, 10:31 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County Socal
Posts: 1,621
Rep Power: 157
#9
05-07-2008, 10:51 AM
As ive only made a few posts it might seem that i am but im an avid Porsche fan (i've owned several including the 997 GT3). I hardly ever post on here but i just can't get over this guy and his chip with the GT-R.
Quick edit to add that i dont have a GT-R on order as i think its ugly as sin
2nd quick edit to say that i do think it has the edge on performance to the turbo........ but only by a small margin
Quick edit to add that i dont have a GT-R on order as i think its ugly as sin
2nd quick edit to say that i do think it has the edge on performance to the turbo........ but only by a small margin
Last edited by Nobby; 05-07-2008 at 10:57 AM.
#10
05-07-2008, 10:58 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 550
B.S. Boy. 10 posts, 7 in GT-R threads. Did you not realize we could look back through your posts?
Not to mention you're one of the main ones quick to claim it's faster.
Sorry, couldnt resist.
Not to mention you're one of the main ones quick to claim it's faster.
Sorry, couldnt resist.
#12
05-07-2008, 11:14 AM
Yeah but the 7 was just in admiration of a car that has that level of performance for the price, the discussion had already been started.
I have to admit i was very tempted to have a GT-R but after seeing one at the Geneva show i thought it was pretty fugly.
The fact is Heavy that you bring more attention to the Gt-R than anyone else here. When it hits your shores in the USA and all the reviews and reports feed back i hope for your sake that the Turbo spanks the Gt-R beacuse you're going to look like a fool if it doesn't.
I'll go back to just surfing here , and im sorry if anyone with a Turbo here thought i offended them , i can honestly say that i would have a Turbo over a GT-R anyday.
#13
05-07-2008, 11:20 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: W Palm Beach, FL
Age: 54
Posts: 174
Rep Power: 27 I debated about whether to add this to the plethora of other threads instead of making you guys eyes bleed with another GT-R thread, but I figured if there are threads about when the TT loses, there should be ones about when it wins.
If you recall the edmunds test from months ago, done in Japan at sea level, the fanboys wanted to say the GT-R beat the Turbo because the same mag tested it. Well I said that it wasnt a realistic comparison since the Turbo was tested @ 1500 ft of feet of elevation (in Vegas) and the GT-R at sea level.
Well I was right. Not only that, but when they tested the GT-R in the states, they tested in Cali and not their test facility in Nevada where they tested the TT. Their facilit in Cali is a little over 100 (YES 100) feet of elevation. So the TT was still at a disadvantage and won.!!!!!!!!
Well when inside line tested here look at what they said.
Funny how they dont mention these rolling start 0-60's in the original story. They also dont note what other cars they have tested under these circumstances, the Turbo was tested a long time ago so I doubt it was tested in this manner yet they still try to compare the times as if it were. And they neglect to mention the TT ran 11.4 0-60 and is therefore faster there too.
I'm sorry, but this car has media fraud written all over it.
So now we've taken down one myth, the GT-R is NOT faster than a 911Turbo certainly not in every way, and not in a straight line (not even equal to 1/4 mile, the TT has still ACTUALLY ran an 11.4 and the GT-R 11.6 And when we get someone to test the TT properly along side at the road course, it will be proven on the track as well. That goes for the Z06 and GT3 too
My apologies for this, but it needed to be said. I wont post again in this threadto keep it short and sweet because I know the fanboys will argue.
If you recall the edmunds test from months ago, done in Japan at sea level, the fanboys wanted to say the GT-R beat the Turbo because the same mag tested it. Well I said that it wasnt a realistic comparison since the Turbo was tested @ 1500 ft of feet of elevation (in Vegas) and the GT-R at sea level.
Well I was right. Not only that, but when they tested the GT-R in the states, they tested in Cali and not their test facility in Nevada where they tested the TT. Their facilit in Cali is a little over 100 (YES 100) feet of elevation. So the TT was still at a disadvantage and won.!!!!!!!!
Well when inside line tested here look at what they said.
Funny how they dont mention these rolling start 0-60's in the original story. They also dont note what other cars they have tested under these circumstances, the Turbo was tested a long time ago so I doubt it was tested in this manner yet they still try to compare the times as if it were. And they neglect to mention the TT ran 11.4 0-60 and is therefore faster there too.
I'm sorry, but this car has media fraud written all over it.
So now we've taken down one myth, the GT-R is NOT faster than a 911Turbo certainly not in every way, and not in a straight line (not even equal to 1/4 mile, the TT has still ACTUALLY ran an 11.4 and the GT-R 11.6 And when we get someone to test the TT properly along side at the road course, it will be proven on the track as well. That goes for the Z06 and GT3 too
My apologies for this, but it needed to be said. I wont post again in this threadto keep it short and sweet because I know the fanboys will argue.
#15
05-07-2008, 12:38 PM
Also some noteworthy facts would be this test was conducted at California speedway. which is at about 1100 ft elevation, and sucks for condition. every time i have been there I have notice slower times from all cars in attendance. the rolling start they refer to is 1 ft the shallow stage which drag strips allow about 1 ft of movement before timing starts. your trying wayy to hard to argue this point. it seems your on some sort of mission. its really a shame a grown adult would pursue something so frantically, especially something so trivial as one cars performance compared to another's under different conditions.
Hammad
Hammad
Last edited by Sakred; 05-07-2008 at 12:44 PM.