damn you guys a splitting hairs. is anyone really going to go to whatever racetrack and extract these precious seconds just to say they have a faster car than him.

 

Guibo - I've been saying this very same thing for months.

#1 GT-R is a unique car that applies power to the ground in a different manner.

#2 It is easier to extract 90% out of the car but very difficult to extract 99% out of the car (without extreme familiarization).

#3 If anybody drove the same car around the same track for over hundreds of laps, he will gain knowledge about the car, and the track, improving his times with that single machine.

#4 If you make enough laps - you will encouter the right weather, right track conditions, right temps, and put together the golden lap.

#5 Even Nissan admitted that the Dunlops will net a few less seconds over the Bridgestones.

I'd like to hear HC's explanation as to why the ZR-1 was faster around the 'Ring than the Koenigsegg. I never knew these times until now. I find that interesting.

 

That is what the DR testers indicated. That also seems to have been your initial position. Which you've backtracked on.

There were more references to the GT2 being hampered. That's the part you don't seem to get. That, along with Harris' very specific conclusion on the matter make your argument moot.

As for turning VDC off to get a faster time - good luck with any warranty claims down the road. Furthermore, VDC has a race mode meant for conditions just like the ones tested under.

You're engaging in pure speculation and it's rather one sided. Harris could have likely scrubbed a ton of time off his GT2 run under dry, ideal conditions as well. But there is nothing to indicate the relative difference between the two cars would have changed in favor of the GT-R the way you indicate. If this DCT equipped, AWD wondercar Nissan built is too encumbered by its own weight to shine under anything less than ideal conditions, Nissan kind of missed its mark, wouldn't you say?

 

I'm not backtracking. I'm wondering why it is that when I tell you the GT2's Cup+ tires perform better in the wet, you don't seem to believe me. But when DR says it, you agree. Hmm...

So what? That doesn't say anything about the magnitude of how these cars were affected. Ok, ok, I get it. You're saying the GT2 would be 50 seconds faster in the dry. Gotcha.

Typical GT-R basher response: getting into a discussion about warranty. Are we discussing the warranty or the fastest way to drive a GT-R around a circuit?? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. Nice try in derailing the discussion.
If you blow a part in a ZR1 or GT2 on the Nurburgring while trying to set a record lap, do you think you'd be covered?
You are talking about the R-mode? I don't see how that would affect Harris's ability to extract even more out of the GT-R in the dry. Randy Pobst said it was already kicking in too badly in the dry at Laguna Seca. I'd imagine that with the GT-R's mass pushing it wider and sooner in the oily cold damp, it would just be even worse.

"Pure speculation, one sided"...pot, meet kettle.
I never said Harris could not have scrubbed a ton of time off his GT2 time under dry, ideal conditions. His own words indicate that (unlike the GT2), the GT-R's behavior took a 100% turn for the worse. Meanwhile, the comments by him and others indicated surprising traction in the GT2 given the conditions. Are you denying this?
He said that in the dry with good grip, the GT-R will be better (think about that one for a moment), in a future tense, but the remarks throughout the timed lap in the article and the video clearly indicate that the GT-R still did not enjoy that good dry-weather grip that it normally does in other tests.
No, they didn't miss their mark. They never said that other cars couldn't be faster. I don't think being 7 seconds slower on a damp 13-mile track than the GT2, driven by an experienced Porsche racer, a car that is near the top of the charts in Sport Auto's wet handling track is "missing the mark." And as I mentioned, in the Australian test, the GT-R was faster than the GT2 by whole seconds on a dusty track.
The fact that we are even comparing GT2 to GT-R and talking about single-digit differences in times on a 13-mile track, well, that says something about the caliber of the GT-R doesn't it?

I think we can both agree that this test was not a good measure of either car's ultimate potential.

 

And you really don't think that a person who is accustomed to driving RWD sports cars, driving a unique AWD for nothing more than few laps, holding it's own in unfavorable conditions against a GT2 that has 50 more hp, and a bunch of track specialty equipment, costing over an additional $100k (not including options or mark-ups), weighs hundreds less, against a Nissan GT-R on the lesser performing Bridgestones, while not in 'R' mode for suspension, isn't a display of accomplishment for Nissan?

They weren't shooting for the GT2, they were aiming the 911T. The mere fact that somebody thought it was more fair to put a $200k+ GT2 against an $80k GT-R is outright flattery for Nissan, and embarrassing for the 911T.

 

Indeed. These are the figures (the only ones that matter to HC).
ZR1 (647 bhp; 422 hp/tonne) - 7:26.4
MC12 (621 bhp; 394 hp/tonne) - 7:24.3
CCX (901 bhp; 612 hp/tonne) - 7:33.6


Some notes on the MC12:
1) its engine was misfiring during the run
2) among the cars, it's the only one with conventional steel brakes
3) among the other cars in the Evo comparison (Zonda F, Enzo, CCX, CGT), it had the lowest hp/wt
4) among the other cars in the Evo comparison, it set the fastest time
5) despite a worse power/wt ratio than the 451 hp/tonne Zonda F, it was 3.9 mph faster on the straight than the Zonda (still think that was an optimum performance for the Zonda, HC?)

The CCX had the highest hp/wt, but had the slowest lap time.

 

found this interesting take on the zr1 versus gt-r videos:

Chev provided more detail with their video - you can see the MPH of the run. Nissan did not so you have to look for other clues as to what is going on.

According to Caranddriver (the only place that I could find with the max speed in each gear) the GTR does 122mph in 4th, 152 in 5th and 191 in 6th.

Given how everyone says the GTR is so easy to drive there shouldn't be a reason for the driver to shift any which way but perfect.

Here are the shift points and their times:

gtr 6:41 4th-5th = 122mph ZR1@6:41 = 140mph
gtr 6:48 5th-6th = 152mph ZR1@6:48 = 163mph

1st bridge
GTR 6:46 ZR1 6:42
2nd bridge
GTR 7:09 ZR1 7:05

The ZR1 never dipped below 95 mph in that corner. Nor does it seem to have trouble getting traction, either, accelerating onto the straightaway.

Between the first and second bridge there is 23 seconds of acceleration by both cars. The Zr1 passes the first bridge at 144mph. The GTR passes it at 6:46 or approx 2 seconds before the shift to 6th which occurs at 152mph! In other words the 638 hp car accelerates above 140mph pretty much identically to the 480 hp car.

ZR-1----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naj7prQG1qE

GT-R----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBZ5i15yVU8

 

You can't always rely on "max speed in gear" figures to determine the speed of the vehicle on the track. For example, the ZR1 is geared to hit 186 mph in 5th gear, yet Mero shifts out of 5th and into 6th at 176.

 

If anyone actually analyses the 2 sych'd vids properly they'll see that the ZR1 reaches the bridge 100 yards before the GTR despite the headwind. Myth busted. Now could everyone please hand in their tin-foil hats in an orderly manner, I'm wrapping a turkey, it's name is heavychevy.

 

The timed runs were not made in the wet. Here's the "wet" DR is talking about:

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature.../photo_00.html

That's where the GT2 was said to have a surprising traction advantage.

Now here's a picture of the track when they timed their runs:

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature.../photo_06.html

Notice any difference?

Now you're just flailing and putting up more strawmen. My point is that the relative difference between the cars (running the same tires used in that test) would have stayed the same or swung in the GT2's favor under better conditions. Again, this is the conclusion of the author and driver.

Hardly. Nissan explicitly states that VDC be left on for best performance. This is how SportAuto tests the GT-R for their Supertest numbers, too. Furthermore, I can't find any reference from Harris about VDC intruding on him and slowing him down during his GT-R run. Can you point me to one?

You're reading the article selectively and out of context. The "turn for the worse" comment was in regards to the GT-R being run on a fully wet, saturated track. Same goes for the reference about the GT2 finding surprising traction. The point remains that by the time the laps were run, the track had dried. Not completely, but enough to swing the advantage back to the GT-R. Harris was quite clear on this:

"The GT2 may have had an advantage in the wet, but with the GT-R's dual clutch transmission and sticky Bridgestones on a dry surface, it will surely be possible to extract a greater percentage of the GT-R's performance potential."

Low and behold, he sticks to this conclusion AFTER the timed runs were completed:

"It could be argued that the conditions suited the Nissan better, but still the Porsche was faster."

"I felt I came much closer to extracting the maximum performance of the Nissan on this single-flying-lap challenge than I did the Porsche."

Game - set - match.

 

My wife, in the GT-R, felt she extracted the maximum performance as any beginner could, on her 2:40 sec lap around VIR.

Game - set - match.

If feelings start setting laptimes, I'd be worried.

 

Both the ZR1's and the ACR's straight line performance are extremely unreliable references for any comparison.

Both cars faced severe headwinds and both cars have tragic levels of aerodynamic drag which multiply the headwind effect by orders of magnitude greater than the GT-R.

I recall that when they tested the ACR at Bonneville it essentially stopped accelerating when they shifted into 5th gear and even then it maxed out at 173mph which is miserable for a 600hp car. So, given the headwind, no one could blame Coronel for keeping it in 4th and just putting up with the rev limiter. The car would have likely slowed down if he grabbed 5th.

The fact that the 650hp ZR1 topped out at 290km/h when the 530hp GT2 topped out at 310km/h should easily be enough to dismiss it as a reference.

 

Does your wife have the same Nurburgring, race and general automotive experience Chris Harris does? Did she drive the GT-R back to back with a GT2 at VIR and contrast the two?

More like a failed analogy.

 

I never said they made the timed runs in the wet. When did I say the timed runs were done during the wet?
In case you didn't know, the 'Ring being so large, localized rainfall is not uncommon (it happened in the Evo supercars comparo). Thanks for wasting my time, showing me pictures I've already seen and proving nothing against what I said.

Oh, so now you're finally accepting that the dry conditions might not have swung toward the GT2's favor. Bovingdon said in better conditions and with the right tires, it would have run the GT2 close; the implication here is a bone dry, non-oily surface. What we know from dry-weather tests is that the GT-R tends to run the GT2 quite close. And the 'Ring is full of the fast, sweeping turns that favors the GT-R (when it's dry and not oily/damp).

He doesn't say a lot about either cars. But isn't a reasonable assumption, knowing what we know about stability control systems, and a heavy GT-R on a damp & oily track?
Of course Nissan would advise that VDC be left on, for warranty purposes. Isn't there a Best Motoring video of a GT-R lapping faster with VDC-off rather than VDC-R? You'll notice that Suzuki lapped with VDC off. Don't you think that if he were trying to set a lap record, he'd leave VDC in "R" mode to set the fastest time, as you are saying? I'm pretty sure the GT-R wouldn't allow those kinds of slides, that level of aggressive driving, with the VDC in "R" mode.
Randy Pobst:
"'Race' mode, or the 'R' mode, it's really not a race mode because there's still a lot of stability control working, and I think the 'R' mode is a wonderful thing to have for your average guy...now for me, as a racecar driver, on a racetrack, I found it very frustrating because it'd pull back the power, and I'd have my foot on the floor, and not getting full power, and it would prevent the car from sliding...it's obviously something that is a safety feature."
Not a performance feature, relative to VDC-off.
Considering that Harris's driving style is nowhere near as aggressive as Suzuki, it's a safe assumption he was content to let VDC-R help guide the GT-R around to its (ultimately lower) limit; there's not much else he could do beyond that. He was at his limit, in that car, under those conditions. This has no bearing on what he might be able to acheive in the dry. Anything else is just conjecture.

As noted, feelings don't constitute lap time improvements.
"It will surely..." Future tense. The assumptions is: bone dry track, with no oil on the surface. Is that the way the test went down? No. Commentary in the video (during the timed laps) and all along the 'Ring chart (showing speeds during the timed laps) indicate damp/oily/slippery. The conditions in which the GT-R "will surely" excel did not materialize. Period.

 

Chris Harris knows a lot. Does that mean he knows everything? Does that mean he can accurately predict the future? Before this test, he predicted the GT-R would be quite close based on their Silverstone experience, and then made the 7-second difference on a 13-mile track sound like an eternity. But then when someone openly admits that he "tends to live and breathe Porsche," it's not all that surprising.
If he knew what Suzuki, Lomas, and Millen know about the GT-R, he wouldn't have driven it anything like that to arrive at "The Truth."