He said that it could be argued that the conditions favored the GT-R. However, after writing that article, he received feedback from Porsche owners who had used the Cup+ tires, and they commented on exactly how the GT2 on those tires could be that fast. Let's not forget that the GT2 is faster than the GT-R in Sport Auto's wet handling course, as are plenty of other rear-engined Porsches even on Cup tires.
And how do we know that Rohrl, given a dry track, would be able to go WOT in every gear to redline in a GT2 anyway? You don't know that for a fact. As Harris said, the detriment of short-shifting was marginal.
Anyway, the basis for your "scientific method" should be an examination of DR test procedures vs Nissan test procedures. Not on the relative difference between the GT-R and GT2 on that day. Your examination doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

The pattern is one of inconsistency. Ie, they are consistent in that they all deviate radically from Nissan's test methods.
Car Magazine? Their driver had only 1 flying timed lap, there were road works present, he wasn't used to driving a RHD car and he wasn't familiar with the GT-R, the timing was done over a full lap including the pit straight. Car Magazine employed this same driver for another test they did with hot hatches. With the same single flying timed lap method, he was 21 seconds slower than Horst von Saurma in the Focus RS, and 25.6 seconds slower than Renault's driver in the Megan R26.R.
Porsche chassis engineer...a person who by trade is not a driver first. Not only that, he is paid to promote Nissan products? C'mon. What did you expect they would say? Would they honestly come right out and say, "Yes, the GT-R beat our Turbo just as it has in every independent head to head test"? Would you believe that Pepsi tastes better than Coke on the basis of Pesi telling you that is so? Auto Motor und Sport, driving the full course with a passenger in the GT-R, was 7 seconds faster than Porsche's top 'Ring aces (with apparently thousands of laps of experience, just like Suzuki right).
Harris's time, as mentioned, is not a credible replication of Nissan's testing procedures so tells us absolutely nothing about the car in question.

That means you can't prove cheating either.

 

I seriously believe that under the right conditions and using the right driver - the new turbo can achieve 7:27 at the ring. Does anyone here doubt that?

 

I believe we've had these discussions before, lighter weight at the Ring is not always an advantage, it's bumpy with all kinds of undulations which make putting the power down that much harder and actually cause the cars to go air born. Heavier cars get tossed around by the track LESS and AWD cars have more tires with power to them on the ground more of the time.

Not to mention, it's been very clear that the GT2 was tested in traffic on all of it's passes, no one can say the same for the Turbo as of yet.

So "faster" is relative to the amount/condition of the test, not a complete reflection of the car itself unless the Turbo passes 11 cars too. The times are too close to definitively say which one is actually faster regardless of which time the TT achieves.

All I know is that in same day testing, the GT2 CLEARLY beat the GT-R by a lot with all of these disadvantages.

If you could take articles past the black and white you see on the pages, maybe you could decipher some solid information

 

You're on a virtual crusade to defend the honor of Nissan's ring claims and admonish anyone who dare question them. Your posting history does not lie. Your motives are clear as day for anyone to see.

That's your standard for validating the integrity of the claim? Anonymous reader comments in a blog went unanswered?

So, I'll ask you again since you dodged the question the first time, do you honestly believe the 911's product chief doesn't know the weight difference between his car and the GT-R?

 

Absolute nonsense. It shows us what an independent source, given real world constraints (non-ideal weather) and limited resources (time) can extract from the car and, more importantly, it shows the relative difference between that car and one of Porsche's. Same goes for the CAR test.

 

the only way anyone is going to prove anything is if:

someone lends their personal GT-R to Toshio Suzuki himself and has him pull off a 7:26

 

And wouldn't these things also apply to the GT-R as well? On top of that, the GT-R (vs pre-facelifted Turbo and GT2) has DCT which allows transfer of power even between shifts (at which point power/wt in the other cars is briefly effectively 0), perfect downshifts via rev-matching, and total driver committment to the line.

All of its passes. That must include last year's test in which the Porsche chassis engineer got the time down to 7:34 (despite Rohrl previously going faster). So then the Porsche Turbo that recorded 7:38 last year was also tested with traffic, as well as the GT-R that recorded 7:54. This implies that the updated Turbo could be even faster than 7:27, meaning not only faster than GT-R, but faster than some other bonafide 600+ hp supercars. Or you are saying Porsche mixes up their times with and without traffic, without due regard to the difference that this can make.

 

Thats amazing! They just got faster and faster

 

And yours are clear too. Discuss the topic(s) at hand.

I'd say it's a possibility. The 911 product chief wasn't even aware that Rohrl had set a time 5 seconds faster in the GT2.
Do you believe the new Turbo can lap in 7:27?

Does the relative difference of 7 seconds on a 20.6km track make sense given the GT-R's power and weight? The relative difference says nothing about the validity of Nissan's test because you don't know for a fact that the GT2 would not pull a low 7:20's time with a similar testing method to Nissan's.
1 flying timed lap in partially damp, oily and cold conditions in a friend's borrowed GT-R with stability control systems enabled does absolutely nothing to refute the validity of Nissan's time. Nissan never said any driver could set this time; they have been totally transparent in how the time was set (not any Nissan test driver, thousands of laps, near perfect conditions, etc).

 

I'd say there's zero chance he doesn't know the weight difference. He's not going to raise a fuss over a "20Kg" delta. If you weren't reading what he said with GT-R goggles on, you might be able to arrive at a more rational interpretation. Any objective person reading that article would know he meant a 200Kg difference.

As far as the new Turbo running a 7:27...to early to tell. There is only one reference to the new Turbo running a 7:39 or so on street tires and no details beyond that. Again, you're only asking the question so you can bludgeon people with your arguments about GT-R's power-to-weight ratio defying technology.

The relative difference on the same day, with the same driver is far more valuable data than Nissan's (or any other manufacturer's) claimed times. You can jump up and down and insist the DR test doesn't refute Nissan's claim, but it sure showed that claim to be of limited to no use in a real world scenario. Like I said, a nice reality check.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

I'm asking if you think it's impossible. 7:39 on the standard Bridgestones, which is 10 seconds faster than before on apparently the same tires.

Wrong assumption. It's not just the GT-R's technology. It's the new Turbo's technology as well. And the Panamera's too.

In a real world scenario, edmunds found the GT-R to be just as fast as the ZR1 on American winding roads, Autocar found even a speed-limited GT-R to be the match for the LP560-4 on UK roads, and Evo found the GT-R to be faster than the GT2 on European winding roads. So what's your point?
If an RS4 outpaces a 997 Carrera on a damp Nurburgring, does that mean Porsche's test result for that car is unrealistic?
It was pretty much a forgone conclusion going into the DR test that they would never replicate the times of either car; DR said it themselves and that they weren't going for all-out lap records. A "reality check" for obviously forgone conclusions is pretty useless.

 

If you start speculating about what times the car could run, you start guessing what contribution is from the new found power and torque of the DFI engine, what is from PDK, what is from the new cup tires (if you want to speculate about a sub 7:30 lap) what is from the PTV system, what is from the suspension improvements, etc. It's a pointless exercise to try to "explain" a time that is completely hypothetical at this point.

Real world ring showdown. You know, a lap around what is supposed to be the most challenging track out there in the hands of an independent tester, benchmarked against a GT2. I thought that was pretty obvious.

The reality check was to see if Nissan's "anytime, anywhere" supercar could better a GT2 and to see how close both cars could come to manufacturer claims. I don't know why a premise this fundamental continues to befuddle you. Should DR have shelved the whole comparison because conditions were less than ideal? "Sorry lads, the track isn't 100% dry and the temperature is in the low 40s. To add to that, it turns out Harris isn't a former F1 driver. That sneaky bastard lied to us. Can't run the GT-R. Wouldn't be replicating the conditions Nissan had so we can't publish a time. Let's pack up the gear and head home."

 

Back on topic:

Motor Trend gives a rave review of the new Turbo. Their "first drive" article contains a few tidbits about the dynamic engine mounts I hadn't yet read:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...iew/index.html

 

The power gain will be blunted somewhat by the weight of the PDK system. If all of those improvements apply to the Bridgestone-equipped car, would not similar be gains be found when applied to a Sport Cup-equipped car?

So your "real world" test now only applies to one single track located in Germany. How many real-world drivers are going to be closing this track down to see how fast a friend's borrowed GT-R fares against a factory GT2? In November? In 7deg C weather, with oils and fluids dropped on track from the previous race weekend in which the driver in question was lapping a rear-engined Porsche?

Read what I quoted from DR personnel again: they weren't out to set fastest outright laps and they admitted going in conditions were far from ideal. In no way were they going to get close to mfr's claims, and they knew it.
The test was an interesting comparo between the two cars. Nothing more. Certainly not a proof of cheating or "reality check" because most people with a sense of the place already know you're not going to be replicating mfr times in those conditions. We didn't need an article (laughably titled "The Truth") to confirm what we already know. Did you, EtherSpill, need such an article to be written for you to know this?

Harris drove an S1 GT-R on Bridgestones but referenced the S1/S2 hybrid car with Dunlops and revisions to suspension and engine/transmission mounts (7:29). The reference time should have been closer to 7:36, which is not far off from Suzuki's 7:38 in the S1 GT-R, also done with Bridgestones; if you want to contend that the 7:38 was done on Dunlops, then go ahead and add 5 seconds to the time (7:43), it will only hurt your case. That means Harris was 20s slower. The reference time for the GT2's best is 7:29, done by Rohrl while lapping traffic. Again, Harris was 20s slower. Where is this humongous gulf of difference between Nissan's claimed time and Rohrl's claimed time?

And how do you know the GT2 would absolutely not be faster than 7:29, given a full record run treatment on a closed track with the same kind of committment that Nissan gave the GT-R?