I don't know what tests you're reading but most I've seen are favorable. The only criticisms I've come across have been of the push button controls on the steering wheel. Having test driven the transmission on a Cayman S myself, I can vouch for them being very awkward at first. But the actual shifting action itself is jerk free and lightning quick.

Nope. Believe me, I've debated with people more skilled than you and a common theme is that they are able to make their points using concise, focused arguments. You constantly stray off on tangents and hypotheticals which require leaps of logic and faith to tie back into whatever point you're trying to make.

Oh, the irony of *you* calling someone else a fanboy.

Pure nonsense. That piece was about living with the car on a daily basis. In fact the subtitle of the article was "No tracks, no figures, just a week living with the Nissan GT-R". Tell me, did Mr. Bovington drive the car on UK roads with the same abandon Harris did around the ring? Did he buzz Buckingham palace at 168mph? What venue do you think is more demanding and better exposes the true handling characteristics of a car? Daily driving on public roads, or a sub 8 minute lap around the ring? Jethro wrote a couple paragraphs about what happens when you turn off VDC-R. No comparison to Harris's exhaustive narrative about the GT-R at the ring.

In fact, more hard work and analysis went into "The Truth" test than the AMuS test you love so much - the test where the GT-R ran 16 seconds faster than a 911 Turbo. Yet you label the DR test "a joke" because the outcome and author's analysis don't support your agenda.

 

Your reference to PDK was as if it somehow hampered performance. Awkward controls does not fit in that category. We are talking performance here, and PDK has next to NOTHING in common with the automatic from Mercedes, certainly not modeled after it. Two completely different concepts.

 

I was not talking about the mechanical benefit of PDK. You as well as anyone knows what I think about DCT's and that has been apparent for months. I'm talking about the weight differential between a PDK-equipped new Turbo vs manual equipped old Turbo.
The PDK wheel-mounted shifters were not modeled after Tiptronic? How is this a much different implementation of the control layout:

 

Geez. Too much GT-R vs 911TT debates.

The GT-R uses "tricks" like knurled metal on the wheel on the side that you mount the rubber on, so it deforms less, yet it makes tire changes impossible outside of a Nissan dealership. Some may call that engineering. I call it, bleh.

Also there is no contest in how the 997TT simply "feels" when you're in it. GT-R is just too clinical, and it rides far too rough around town and clunks and clangs its differentials audibly when you're parallel parking and what not.

Sure, it may draw lots of attention (well, my gf thought it was a $30K Japanese car when she saw it, lol) but to me, apples and oranges. GT-R is a mighty achievement overall, but once again shows that the Japanese simply cannot do "lux" and "sport" in combination as well as others. IMVHO.

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about, the push button controls on the steering wheel. They could have been awkward for 5th Gear to use, and thus could explain the time difference.

What Rohrl might achieve given a completely closed and clear track and near unlimited laps is not a tangent to what the GT2's true potential is, and it's pretty amazing that you don't think that's reasonable.
The realistic 20-second difference between Harris vs Suzuki and Harris vs Rohrl is not a tangent either. It's an integral part to the discussion as to the value of the test. Pure and simply, Harris gave benefit of doubt to the GT2 considering the conditions (apparently unaware that Rohrl had gone 3 seconds faster even with traffic) and gave no benefit to the GT-R considering the conditions in his final estimate, even though he mentioned in his commentary that he lost lots of time in some places due to the conditions in both cars.

"as someone who tends to live and breathe Porsche"
--Chris Harris, describing himself

Abandon? Harris was basically understeering with the VDC on. We can tell from Bovingdon's writing that he clearly got loose in the GT-R. From what I recall, he had the car for at least a whole week, right?

No, it's a joke because their estimation was rather one-sided. Harris was slower than Rohrl by more than he realized, and he was not as far off from Suzuki (in the S1 GT-R) as he thought. It's a joke if you want to draw a meaningful conclusion about factory claims, based on what was written. What Harris didn't add (because he only found out later in DR's Community forum) was that the Cup+ tires are not like regular Cups in those conditions. That's why he (and other DR editors, as well as Performance Car Magazine editors who tested the GT2 against the R500 in damp conditions) were amazed by how much traction it had.

 

My hunch is that for anyone below expert level, PDK will be faster on any sort of track because of its consistency. I think someone like Rohrl, for example, could perhaps match the times from a PDK car in a manual but I'm willing to be proven otherwise. Fifth gear didn't like the control setup from the get-go so perhaps it did hamper their track test.

It's not "reasonable" because all you're doing is guessing and you lack the objectivity and expertise to make guesses that I believe in. A prime example of this is you posting screencaps from Horst Von Saurma in a GT3 doing a warmup lap as proof of him going all out. Many of your arguments are based on this exact brand of speculative reasoning and aren't worth indulging because there is nothing of substance behind them.

Yes, abandon. Harris also got the GT-R loose wet lapping. It isn't as if he wasn't "on it" all the way as he flirted with 170mph on the back straight and was faster than the GT2 he supposedly "worships, lives and breathes" in several places.

You'll have to excuse Harris for not maintaining the latest, up-to-date internet list of ring times as he does spend a good portion of his time driving, racing, and getting paid to write car reviews. His reference for the GT2 being not the fastest ever run hardly discredits his analysis or changes the outcome of the test. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain the time Harris used was the time in the official literature Porsche used to market the GT2, which was kinda the point of the test.

 

He was obviously pushing hard enough to have the car drop wheels off track or onto the curbing and get crossed up in a few places. Do you seriously think he was pussyfooting in that video? Point to point, he was going faster than he was in the Z06 video and that Z06 video was only 2 seconds off from the fastest supertest lap. The point was that Rohrl was faster than HvS on that lap, even though he had to contend with traffic that at one point blocked both sides of the track, and he had the safety of the passenger to consider.
Why is it unreasonable to assume that Rohrl would be faster than his best in the GT2 given a clear track and no obstruction to his lines? It's incomprehensible how someone would think this is totally unreasonable or impossible.

The wet lapping which was NOT timed. And did Harris convey how the GT-R behaved when it got loose? Do you seriously think that's exactly the same way Suzuki drives the GT-R to get the best out of it?

And what if the time used by Porsche to market the GT2 was also done with even heavier traffic? That would make sense given his even faster time with the 11 cars.
None of that excuses Harris. If you're going to be estimating best times for the GT2 by considering the weather conditions, failing to do so for the GT-R points to bias or ineptitude, wouldn't you say? I find it laughable that you don't think a journalist has a duty to represent all the facts when he titles his article "The Truth." Fact of the matter is, Harris was referencing the wrong best time for the GT2 (itself done on an open track with traffic) while referencing the wrong time for the GT-R; it should have been an S1 GT-R time, not the modified hybrid car with detailed refinements. Or maybe you really do think that Nissan conducted their test after only 1 flying timed lap with a couple of feeler laps in wet, cold, and oily conditions with autumn leaves in the pavement.

Harris himself said that on days that you think are climatically identical, you can see a time difference of 5 seconds in the same car. A difference of 5 seconds isn't worth talking about. The conditions of the test were clearly (and obvious to anyone with an open mind) much worse than when Suzuki drove the S1 GT-R to a 7:38 time in 2007. By his own admission, Harris lost a bunch of time in one section alone in both cars (and yes, that includes the GT-R). At a bare minimum, and keeping the negligble 5s difference in mind, it's reasonable to assume a 10s difference could be attributed to the track and weather conditions. Forget the fact that he was on Bridgestones, and consider the 10s he allows for the difference between himself and Suzuki. Now consider the easily 10s due to the conditions. There's the 20s gap bridged right there. Even if it were 5s off, the 'Ring is so long with so many variables, you couldn't call cheating on the basis of a 5s difference.

 

Still dragging that dead horse behind you, eh? The Z06 is a different (slower) car, lower limits, different delta between warmup lap and his timed lap. Red herring. May as well point out that his GT3 warmup lap was faster than the Audi TT he supertested back in 2008 while you're at it. Furthermore, Rohrl was not faster (he was on pace for a 7:55 at best) nevermind the fact that both videos are incomplete laps so it's a specious comparison to begin with. Seriously, you're trying to cherry pick parts of a *warmup lap* as evidence of HvS being an inferior driver. That you don't see the folly in that is just mind-blowing, but not surprising to anyone familiar with your "work".

Was anything in the "Getting to know the GT-R" piece timed?

You think Bovington came closer to discovering the true limits and handling characteristics of the GT-R on UK roads than Harris did at the ring running a sub 8 minute lap on a cold track? That is your contention, is it not?

In truth, he doesn't need to be excused. He provided an exhaustive side-by-side commentary the likes of which no other independent tester has done today. He should be applauded. Everywhere outside of GT-R fanboy central, that article has been incredibly well received.

Ineptitude. Finally a topic you're well versed in. Let's give you some perspective here. Harris is an accomplished racer, a ring veteran and a respected journalist known for his impartiality. His credentials are more or less impeccable. When he did his analysis, he did what any reputable journalist would do and referenced the time Porsche advertised. That's the "official" time. Same goes for the 7:29 Nissan advertised. He's not going to equivocate and bring in a time Rohrl mentioned in a magazine interview - or wherever that time originated - because it's not the one "blessed" by Porsche and it would only create uncertainty and turn the article into the type of convoluted mess your posts exemplify. Again, it's why he gets paid to write articles and you spend your time spamming multiple forums with this same nonsense. Lastly, as far as the GT2 time, you're b*tching about a difference of 3 seconds. You yourself said that's "nothing" on the ring, now it's cause to discredit the DR article and the author. Don't look now, but it would appear you've sprung another leak.

 

Talk about red herring and tangents...you might have had a point if the Audi TT lapped anywhere close to 7:51 like he did in the Z06.

A warmup lap which was noticeably faster than a lap for the Z06 which wasn't far off at all from its outright fastest supertest lap.
Should we run through the list of cars in which HvS is slower than other drivers to prove the point?

Did it have to be? So you're saying Harris only pushed when the timing hadn't even begun, and when it did...well, he didn't get loose again did he.
Bovingdon did far more in that article to describe how the GT-R behaves at its true limit with VDC-off than Harris did. Care to guess why? Oh, that's right. Harris didn't drive with VDC-off, and certainly didn't get the car sideways on purpose the same way Suzuki does in his laps. On a cold track, the GT-R's limits would be more easily reached (and contained by the stability control systems), and at a much lower speed than it would in warmer conditions. This tells us next to nothing about how the car behaves in the much better conditions of Nissan's testing. How it behaves, when it relinquishes ultimate grip with stability controls off, is crucial to understanding how Suzuki drives the way he does. Why doesn't every other Nissan driver drive the same way and replicate Suzuki's times?

The 3 seconds isn't just about the 20 seconds differential between Harris and Rohrl. It provides the context behind the lap times, which you seem to have a very hard time grasping. The 7:32 set by Rohrl in the GT2 is clearly not of the same effort as the 7:29 set by Suzuki, and Harris did very little to convey this to the reader. And the 7:38 time was also an official time, publicized by Nissan themselves. That's the time that should have been referenced.
How do you know Rohrl could not possibly have gone faster in the GT2, given a completely closed track, nevermind the countless laps that Nissan did with the GT-R? Without even examining these differences, the article is clearly flawed if it really set out to provide insight into the validity of mfr claims.

 

These intellectual discussions are so much fun!

 

(a) Not all of HvS's warmup laps and timed laps fall on top of each other. He was on pace to run a 7:50 in the GT3 video you unwittingly posted without knowing it was a warmup lap. In other words, 10 seconds slower than the GT3's timed lap.

(b) Both the Z06 and the Audi TT, yes the Audi TT, are slower than the 997.2 GT3. Although the Z06 is closer, it is in no way the performance equal of the GT3, especially on stock tires. You can't use *timing data* from the Z06 lap to make an apples to apples comparison about HvS's level of effort in a different car any more than you can use *timing data* from the Audi TT lap. All you're is doing backpedalling to cover your mistake in (a) and you're doing so rather clumsily.

Seriously, you are beyond lost.

 

And repetitive as hell. Sorry about that. We really need a new comparison test to suck the life out of.

 

Don't apologize. I really do enjoy reading this stuff. Keep at it. You're right though, I wish someone would buy these cars off the show room floor and get some respected pro to take them both around the ring a few times and take an average. That is, if the GTR would last that long. It might overheat or the brakes might fail. Oh my, is my bias very obvious?

 

Whoa wait. Where did I say the video was of the official supertest fastest lap for the GT3? By your admission that he was "on pace" to run a 7:50, which is only 1s slower than his all-out best lap in the Z06, tells you that he is pushing in the video. Getting crossed up and dropping wheels over the curbing was indication enough that he wasn't driving at a leisurely pace.

Let's say you want to completely ignore the variables of conditions in the DR test, which you want to do in the case of the GT-R, but you're more than willing to accept as allowance given to the GT2. Even if you continue to believe that the 7:38 of Suzuki's S1 GT-R time was done on Dunlops, then go ahead and add 5s to that time to arrive at the time that such a car would likely achieve were it on Bridgestones like DR's borrowed customer car. That brings it to 7:43.
Now Harris admits as much as 10s difference between himself and Suzuki in the GT-R. 7:56 - 0:10 = 7:46. That's a difference of only 3s, even ignoring the considerably different weather and track conditions. Do any of you seriously think 3s in very different conditions, in a borrowed customer's car vs a meticulously maintained and 'Ring-optimized factory mule, points to cheating, when Harris himself says a difference of 5s in similar conditions isn't even worth mentioning?

 

DR co-founder Steve Davies:
"Chris felt that he got pretty close to the GT-R's potential around the lap, albeit the Dunlop tyres would have provided an extra 5 seconds of pace and a properly dry circuit with warmer temperatures would have helped both cars, so we guess that 7:45 or less would definitely be within the GT-R's reach."

He seems to imply that at least 6 seconds can be attributed to the conditions. This time is left out of Harris's calculations.

7:56 Harris in a borrowed customer S1 GT-R in worse conditions, with Bridgestones
Subtract:
- 0:15 for Suzuki + Dunlops
- 0:06 for conservative estimate of differences due to conditions

7:35 Estimated time for Suzuki on Dunlops in this borrowed customer S1 GT-R in good conditions, based on the DR article
7:38 Suzuki in the S1 factory mule with 2 damp sections

Cheating?

That is only 6 seconds off the pace of Suzuki in the S1/S2 hybrid car with detail refinements, ideal conditions, and a perfect lap. If the same car can see a 5s difference in similar conditions as Harris contends, then the additional 1s of a car further refined isn't worth mentioning.