This is what this all comes down to for me at least. Porsche fanboys hate GTR fanboys for being annoying. Porsche guys actually like the GTR for what IT IS. Speed. There is no other reason for it's existence. You get all the prestige, heritage and the other "I studied harder than you did" stuff when owning the 911 which to most, is important. GTR fanboys deep down love the 911 Turbo but hate Porsche for charging so much for the car they always wanted since they were a kid. No matter how many promotions and raises i get, I can never bring myself to drop $160k on one car. I should have studied harder. ARgggghhhhh.

 

Heh...that's a pretty good reply.

 

Too Funny!!!

 

It was the driver who made the excuse not me. I know it would affect me if I was driving an LHD car.

The exact times were 7:51.08 vs 7:49.82. So that's about 1s over an 8 minute lap with an RHD car driven by an LHD driver for 122 corners. It's hardly as clear cut as saying 7:26 vs 7:40 with fully-prepped factory drivers, or even taking the 7:38 of a magazine that favours Porsches - Sport Auto. Then you've got all the other evidence that says the GTR is faster. It's the weight of evidence that wins through in the end.

 

Come now, with finance deals, anyone can afford anything if they really want it and have a job... hell even if they don't have a job some lenders would still give them a deal.

Maybe they didn't see the caravan that the owner was now living in/towing.

 

Ummm nope. Now I know for a fact that you've never purchased a car before and that you don't even have your driver's license.

 

The only good evidence is racing under controlled conditions. My take is that they felt it was a pretty fair comparison, the driver was making no excuses. I was referring to the respondant using it as an excuse. Auto Express, in their recent comparison, in which they ranked the GT3 over the GTR, got the GTR only 2/10 th of a second faster on the track they used. That is within the standard error of measurement, I am sure. In other words, not a significant difference. Like I said, continue to throw figures around, but until they compare them in a sanctioned race series, these figures mean very little.

 

Oh really. If I have a deposit and can prove I have enough spare income each month to cover the monthly installment of course I can. Some lenders however aren't even scrupulous enough to check that. A person with a very meagre salary and enough spare coin and a deposit can easily get hold of a 997 turbo. Especially when they're now less than a GTR as used buys. Hell a 996 Turbo costs no more than an R34 GTR.

 

Fair enough. But Autocar figured the Goodwood times at:

GTR 1:27.7
GT3 1:29.2

http://www.germancarzone.com/interna...ort-200-a.html

 

That just shows how little you know.

 

This is ridiculous. It is quite entertaining though.

 

Still waiting for proof on this, heavy. Have you got it?

If you can order it that way, then yes, that'd be stock. What's it worth in terms of lap times?

It said he did only one lap. If there was a practice lap, there was only one. Not multiple laps. In the next issue of Car, they used the same driver and same single flying lap method with the Focus RS and were about 15-20s off the time from Sport Auto. The single flying lap tests are next to useless.
His lines except for one corner were perfect; that doesn't mean he was truly on a 100% pace. And one botched corner can compromise the following corner, or have drastic effect if it leads onto a long straight.
Also, the GT-R is faster on the 'Ring with its VDC off, provided you know how to maximize its potential. Drivers in other cars have said the 'Ring's differing surfaces and bumps can play havoc with a car's stability and traction systems, cutting power unnecessarily when you actually want to slide the car (see Suzuki's driving).
Porsches says the 997.2 GT3's PSM is so unobtrusive, it's actually faster with its electronics on, even in the hands of its engineers and race drivers.

 

The proof is on tracks around the world, you'll find people everywhere getting 3 seconds from street tires to R-compounds. The Dunlops have undeniably proven themselves to be as fast as the R888 on the GT-R.

Sorry I can't provide all that information for you, it's within the circles of track forums and guys all around that visit the track. There will be no magazine articles comparing street to r-comp (although there was one in grassroots magazine) and they got over 2 seconds on a autocross type track.

This is not mythical, R-comps are much faster than street tires (a select few street tires may be close, but hardly any are OEM) and Dunlops are as fast as r-comps, put two and two together and you get the idea.

Google will not work this time, you have to go to the track regularly and run in the circles. But if you search extensively on all the forums you'll find it in one thread or another.

 

^Are these "tests" same-day, same-car tests? One test you referenced earlier happened in Australia, and as it turned out the tests were done a year apart. The year that the off-the-shelf R888s (ie, not designed specifically for the GT-R) were found to be "no faster" than the Dunlops, other competitors in that same event were slower compared to their times from the year before. Which tells us that conditions were likely a factor.
Off-the-shelf R888's were good for only 1 second on the Nordschleife for Sport Auto's supertest of the Focus RS. It's entirely possible these tires may have consistency issues even in vehicles as light as the Focus. However, there have been GT-R racers who swear by the R888's, so it's all pretty inconclusive.

I still haven't seen proof that the Dunlop 600's are 2-3s faster than the Bridgestone RE070's. Is that for a 1-minute lap? Nissan claims 5s on the Nurburgring and that's a 7.5 minute lap. According to their testing at Tsukuba, there is only about a 1s difference on a 1-minute lap.
When C&D tested the GT-R in the Lightning Lap, they found the all-season Dunlop 7010's to be ~3s slower on a near 3-minute lap, compared to the 600's. Considering the GT-R lapped in 2:55.6 with the SP Sport 600's, that would mean about a 2:59 for the same exact car on the 7010 A/S's. This is 2 seconds faster than the '08 Corvette Z51 in the same test, and on par for the Z06 from the year earlier. You can't pin that result down on tire differences; there is not likely much between them. There is, however, still a huge disparity in hp/wt. The GT-R can be faster for other reasons. Not just the tires. Even on the all-season 7010's, the GT-R is about 5s faster on VIR than the CTS-V, a car with more power, better power/wt, and bespoke PS2's.

 

You leave out the fact that an off the shelf R888 has a huge weight advantage because it's in a smaller size and likely on a race wheel. Off the shelf R-comps are what 99.9% of people get. I don't get your point, it doesn't take specially designed r-comps to see improvements because no one gets specifically desisgned RComps. The fact that the GT-R did, and those still didn't out perform the Dunlops is even more astounding. Just the tires alone in the Australia test would give 40-50 lbs of unsprung weight advantage to the R888 car, but still no improvement.

You also forgot one, the same day test with Randy Pobst in which the Dunlops out performed the R888's developed specifically for the GT-R. You also left out the driver impressions from the Australia test who also prefered the Dunlops. And despite the release of the R888's and lots of people buying them, no one has reported significant improvement over the Dunlops. If a lighter smaller set of R888's can't beat the Dunlops, a equal size one will not either.

How can you not pin down the Lightning Lap results when the GT-R went MORE THAN 3 seconds faster which could just as easily put the GT-R over 3 minutes as it could a high 2:59 and DEFINITELY slower than LOW 2:58.2 that the Z06 ran. That is the sole reason the GT-R beat the Z06.