And another heavy:

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/vergl...=30&now=61#mmg

 

What does that say, the GT-R ahead by a tenth right?


Dunlops > Bridgestone by +2-3 seconds PER LAP. Turbo > GT-R.

 

I like both cars and i reckon the GTR is a nice achievement but such arguments are pathetic

 

How so? The GT-R tested on it's best tires vs the Turbo on it's regular tires and the GT-R eeking by on tenths and hundredths of seconds.

I take it you don't track much to know the importance of tires to lap times.

 

6 tenths. Doesn't actually say what tyres they were on!

Please don't start your strawmanning again. Either provide proof of a 997.2 beating a GTR or provide proof that a 997.2 on PS2s with the same driver can deliver this miraculous 3s difference in the same conditions. Anything else is a strawman argument, plain and simple.

I like 911s too it's just difficult with chevy because everyone is forced to like one or the other.

 

You can't hate on the GT-R. Its a Japanese engineering marvel. And for the price of the car you can't really beat the dollar per performance power. However that being said....at the end of the day a Porsche is still a Porsche.

 

A good try, A+. The GTR's time was 7:51 - Issue 563, page 73.

So 2s slower over an 8 minute lap whilst sitting on the wrong side of a car he'd never driven before.

 

Haha. Slanted fanboy logic at it FINEST.

The Turbo is LIGHTER THAN THE GTR. The Turbo has MORE POWER THAN THE GTR. And yet the Turbo was still 0.6 seconds slower during the track testing.

While you the fanboy see this as...

"Well if they took the snow tires off the Turbo it would have won"

The sane and reasonable man sees this as...

"Gee, If the GTR had additional power to compensate for the massive power-to-weight disadvantage, it would have won by even more"



You have a excuse-first way of thinking Heavy. When from the get-go, the turbo has FAR MORE POWER and FAR LESS WEIGHT than a GTR. Even with that adavantage, you still want to cry and make excuses.



No unbiased, non-fanboy will ever come to your defense on this one Heavy. You reached a new low.

 

The GTR is a box on wheels with NO SOUL and it sounds terrible too. You get what you pay for. End of story!!!

 

Motorsports do have absolutely no bearing on road cars despite a little hand-down tech. If Nissan wanted to compete in GT2 with the GTR they'd have to build an homologated RWD GTR at for the road at great expense that would be inferior to the AWD version in every way wrt road performance on road tyres. Don't try to claim that a GT3 running with a new body, brakes, suspension, shocks and gearbox on slicks is any way representative of the road car just because a few internal skeletal parts are the same.

How is all of the chassis put to the test? For most people that would include suspension and whole ****-load of other things. We know that GT racing favours RWD, so how is that a comparison which can be made against a GTR? As I've said to compete in it, Nissan would have to build a RWD GTR that would be an inferior model in terms of road-going ability. Not really a good use of money. GT2 Racing is for people who can't compete at the top level who want to go under the banner, 'it's more like the road car'. It's nothing like the road car. It's like me competing in an event after all my muscles have been stripped and replaced with cyberbnetics and I've been drugged up to the eyeballs and had all my various parts replaced with lightweight cybernetic equivalents. A GT2 car is about as close to a road car as a Terminator is to a human being.

What exactly is the same? Show us all the parts of the chassis that are the same, so that we can take a good look at how much is actually the same. I bet it's a few bars of metal and that's all.

Get a GTR and a GT3, strip them, stick a carbon body on them, uprate every major suspension, brake and diff component and the GTR still wins in time attack. Sure it won't win an enduranace event because AWD cars use their front tyres more. Against another AWD vehicle like a 997T it would be different.

The true judge of a car is either stock for stock or an equal amount of mods. You're not beating a GTR with either. Keep up the strawmanning.

 

That's not a full list. Here are some of my favourites:

 

 

That's a 2009 GTR and an absolutely retarded test where all the American cars do really well. Having seen those results one would be tempted to buy a GT500 over a 911 Turbo. It's funny how in MotorTrend test the GT500 always seems to have half-way competent handling even though everyone with an ounce of sense knows it's handling is utter ****e. FFS, a ZR1 5s faster than a GTR. Give me a break. And could you explain why Edmunds were a second faster with an '08 GTR that's at least 1-1.5s slower per minute than an '09?
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track16.html

Try something a little more expansive. The Goodwood test was the same day.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...7_GT3_facelift

And if you, like heavyhobo want to include $20k worth of factory options (PDK, Sport Hobo, Michelin PS2s), fine the GTR will include the Nismo Club Sport Pack and upgraded Nismo ECU. Fully warranteed, therefore counts as 'stock' right?

 

Pathetic excuse. The guy's a pro, very familiar with the ring and did practice laps in a car with all kinds of electronic gimmicks to help a driver out. He said he got all but one corner perfect. In every one of these tests there always seems to be some variable that allows one side to make excuses. We can throw figures at each other all day, but until they come up with sanctioned events where the cars compete with each other at the same time with professional drivers behind the wheel, we really know nothing.

 

Both are awesome cars. However, the Porsche takes the cake for me