Id rather have a GT3 or a TT over a GTR any day of the week. I dont care how fast it is, lap times are not important outside of racing, driver enjoyment is.

 

When you make a claim based on research you have conducted, you must explain in great detail how you conducted that resaerch so that others can come along and duplicate your research and get the same results. If someone decides to duplicate your research and can't come up with the same results, your claim becomes highly questionable. An example would be "cold fusion". No one else has been able to duplicate cold fusion, so that claim is considered highly questionable. No one has been able to duplicate Nissan's claim, although Driver's Republic duplicated the Porsche engineer's claim and Von Surma's claim. And come on, Suzuki was never a Formula 1 ace, and the DR journalist is considered a very accomplished Nurburgring driver, having completed 24 hour indurance races there.

 

Expense/weight/reliability are all things that time and technology will solve. The GT-R is already unnaturally fast around corners for it's weight and is almost 50% less than competitive cars, so Nissan has started to push the envelope here-- perhaps at the expense of reliability. Only time will tell.

I'm not talking about science fiction or some entirely new concepts-- just the natural evolution of stability contol and AWD diffs-- all enhanced with better mechanical engineering and computer assist.

Guys: this is already happening.

Also, "VDC off" mode does not turn off the smart AWD system or the smart dual clutch. Maybe those should be considered "nannies" as well.

 

Theres no question that the car ran a 7:29, but was it a ringer?

All times including those driven by the very fast guys could not come close to Nissan's lofty claims. Handling wasnt the issue but power. Simply put the cars in the 7:20's bracket are far mower powerful, far lighter and have far better aero. Nissan's claims is and has always been questionable when it came to the GTR and Nurbrugring.

Ive posted up Suzuki's F1 efforts before. He had one of the worst qualifying and finishing results of any driver. The only thing going for Suzuki was that he had allot of $$$$, still he was dropped after the two races.

Those that test for manufactures around the Nurburgring are not your average Joe's. Most race car drivers also prefer oversteer than understeer.

Ive pointed out why its not suited around the ring. This doesnt mean that they didnt test there.

 

[media]http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RbI93pXXGvk&fmt=18[/media]

According to Kimi Raikanon your braking points (4:32) are the ones that affect your lap times the most. The GTR is a very heavy car that according to Driver Republic simply cant brake as late or as well and last as long as other proper supercars.

 

well i heard otherwise. I think in Evo review?


well anyway im done discussing it, its pointless to argue with porsche fans here lol I dont own any of the cars, i like them both, and soon if I would make a purchase decision it would be a tough one.

 

That's interesting. Then why is the GT-R faster than the TT around all tracks?

According to ChrisN (you are reading now-- no need for YouTube), lap times are the product of a complex set of variables.

Porsche has long been know for great breaking (rear engine helps). Add to that the fact that the GT2 is in different class as GT-R, so it is not surprising that it brakes better.

 

Interestingly in MT, Didier Theys ran the GT-R, GT2, 599 and ZR1. The GTR lapped the slowest in the tight Las Vegas infield.

And, like the also very heavy Ferrari, shredded a tire during the high speed testing which also took out some bodywork.

Now I know why the Veyron has such special tires.

Not sure what you mean by the 50% part.

Yes, those are nannies.

 

I think he means price.

 

How is this babbling bs nonsense thread still going? What a waste of bandwidth. The mods should shut it down.

 

Regardless I'd love to try the GTR when the price plummet to under $50 K this summer.

 

The track was moist when DR conducted the review as well as their GT-R had the Bridgestones (7:38 was it?). Nissan's lap was in the summer time using the Dunlops (7:29), that's a believable 9 secs on such a huge track.

I love both the TT and the GT-R and if I was to own one of these great cars it'll be the TT (quality, leather, looks, seating position, heritage, and Porsche simply won't put a function in their cars unless it's 100% safe to use everytime, anytime) , but I don't question Nissan's claims at all.

 

Who cares about a few seconds a lap on a road car that most will never drive on the track. All this bickering just so you can brag to people, it’s faster then so and so and cost this much less. The driver has more to do with how fast a car is then anything. This isn’t F1 anyway, it’s the average everyday world!

 

Rally driving and circuit driving do not follow the same concept in the least. Try to cross examine benefits from the rally course to the street cicuit is useless, unless we are talking about a drift contest.

BOTH 7:38 and 7:29 runs had the DUNLOP TIRES.

And bridgestones are better in the wet, better than both MPSC and Dunlops, so the GT-R technically had an advantage over the GT2 in the DR test and was suited with the best fit tires for the test.

Chris commented on how the GT-R sturggled with oversteer more than the GT2. I'd bet money the private owner of the GT-R had the most aggressive suspension settings you could get on that car, imagine how bad it would have been if he had on tires that are worse in wet conditions???

 

It really does say something when all the magazines test production GT-R's and they lose to the GT2,ZR1,599,ACR,F430 in open testing. On 1.3mile and 4.2mile long tracks they are outpaced by 1-7 seconds but most of the cars they claim to outperform.

example...In the Nov. 2008 car and driver the GT-R ran a 2:55.6 around the virginia international speedway. The ACR Viper pulled a 2:48.6....seven full seconds on a 4.2 mile course!

BTW the GT-R only outpaced a Z51 Corvette by 5.8 seconds around the same track.