Base GT-R lobs 7:38 Nordschleife Supertest Lap Time
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
The fact that amazes me is that an AWD car like the GTR has such a narrow performance envelope. There is no way in the world a GT2 should be compared to a GTR on a wet track. I would have thought hell would freeze over before a GT2 would be better in the wet than any car.
Which AWD car do you think would put out a better time with the same driver / same conditions on a slightly damp track (some places by water, some by oil).
If the whole track was wet, I think that would've been different.
Did the GT2 have tires that helped with wet performance?
Did the GT-R?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 64
2: If Porsche did indeed replicate Nissan's test method (lapping day after day, during 7 different test sessions, with hundreds or thousands of laps), then we should question the 7:54 they got, because:
- Chris Harris, after only 1 flying lap in far from ideal conditions (and 2 practice laps in the wet) was only 2 seconds slower.
- Andy Gulden, in a RHD car which was unfamiliar to him, with only 1 flying lap in a car that was completely new to him, running the full course with road works present, beat Porsche's best aces by 3 seconds.
- An Auto Motor und Sport journalist, apparently with passenger and running the full course, beat Porsche's best aces by 7 seconds (and beat the Turbo in the same test by 16 seconds)
After all that, it's pretty amazing that you're still defending Porsche's result on this.
The GT-R's pulling power past 140 is not yet proven beyond a doubt.
Drivers Republic: only 3 laps total (1 flying lap), in cold/damp/oily conditions.
Sport Auto: 3 laps @ less than 100%; 7:38 is close to 7:29; you will see 10-second differences between Rohrl's time in the CGT for different days.
Porsche: "Yeah, we're really going to admit that a 1740-kg Nissan is faster than our Turbo." Get real.
Millen was hired by Nissan years ago. Still didn't stop him from getting a slow lap time (dead last) and low rating for a Nissan 350Z in this test:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....page_number=13
"The Porsche 911 Carrera S...this is the car I would choose to own — to take to the track and then enjoy on the drive home."
--Steve Millen
On his scorecard, he had the Mercedes SLK above the 350Z.
This is quite different from someone who "lives and breathes Porsche," who waxed eloquently about his newfound love for the GT2 (which displaced the GT3 in his heart).
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 64
The fact that amazes me is that an AWD car like the GTR has such a narrow performance envelope. There is no way in the world a GT2 should be compared to a GTR on a wet track. I would have thought hell would freeze over before a GT2 would be better in the wet than any car.
Autocar ran an M3 against an S4, on a dry course, then the same course wetted down. Here were the results:
Dry
M3: 47.32 sec
S4: 48.01
Wet
M3: 53.94
S4: 55.91
When TopGear ran its M3 CSL test (genuine semi-slicks in the wet), it lapped their circuit about as fast as the Murcielago.
Autocar ran another test in 2005, running both a wet and a dry track. The AWD Mitsubishi Evo was slower in the wet than cars it had blitzed in the dry.
An AWD car is often more predictable at exploring the limits in the wet, but that doesn't mean it's always fastest.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
Etherspill, has HC passed on his crown to you?
It all comes down to the fact that in the DR test, Chris Harris DID NOT extract the best from either the GT2 or the GTR. Anything else is just pure conjecture.
What part of that do you not understand?
Seriously, in the name of god, what is wrong with these GTR 'haters'? It's just a car for crying out loud! It did not take away your job or kill your family.
It all comes down to the fact that in the DR test, Chris Harris DID NOT extract the best from either the GT2 or the GTR. Anything else is just pure conjecture.
What part of that do you not understand?
Seriously, in the name of god, what is wrong with these GTR 'haters'? It's just a car for crying out loud! It did not take away your job or kill your family.
Did you know that both times, the Zonda suffered problems? This was printed in the Evo article:
"Immediately after setting that record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned."
I already know there are not one but two videos of the Zonda on the 'Ring. Both times, they had problems related to fueling. Of course your times might be similar. Neither were running at optimum. So what's your point? To compare one underperforming Zonda against...another underperforming Zonda?
The misfires were apparently important enough for them to mention them.
Based on the telemetry, it was indeed at around 140 mph at the 1st overhead banner on the straight.
You don't know that all of these cars were faster in the turn than the GT-R. The GT-R (on Bridgestones) was faster in some corners than the ACR in C&D's test at Buttonwillow, remember? It is apparently outcornering the ZR1 in the latest Auto Bild test, because it sure was slower in a straight line.
However, leaving out the exit speeds could be a huge part of your problem. Check out the GT-R's exit speeds in this Car Magazine comparo with the Turbo:
Notice that it pulls close to the Turbo, and in some straights continues to pull harder because it doesn't lose speed with the shifts. And this was a customer GT-R, delivered to the owner only a day before the test.
There is a similar result in Sport Auto's fahrberichte of the GT-R compared to the 997TT on the Nurburgring GP course.
So you're saying the ACR engineers adjusted the aero for the long back straight. Wouldn't that sacrifice the cornering speed?
Bouncing off the rev limiter...thanks for giving yet another explanation as to why the ACR wasn't as fast as it was. Based on the elevation, the ACR could be down almost 40 hp from its SAE net rating too.
Look at the R&T result with the ACR & GT-R on the speedway. The GT-R was faster than the ACR. And unlike the ACR, this GT-R did not have an engineer on hand to maximize the GT-R's performance here. Yet it still hit a higher maximum speed, as well as a higher avg.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...8_cvr_oval.pdf
"Immediately after setting that record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned."
I already know there are not one but two videos of the Zonda on the 'Ring. Both times, they had problems related to fueling. Of course your times might be similar. Neither were running at optimum. So what's your point? To compare one underperforming Zonda against...another underperforming Zonda?
The misfires were apparently important enough for them to mention them.
Based on the telemetry, it was indeed at around 140 mph at the 1st overhead banner on the straight.
You don't know that all of these cars were faster in the turn than the GT-R. The GT-R (on Bridgestones) was faster in some corners than the ACR in C&D's test at Buttonwillow, remember? It is apparently outcornering the ZR1 in the latest Auto Bild test, because it sure was slower in a straight line.
However, leaving out the exit speeds could be a huge part of your problem. Check out the GT-R's exit speeds in this Car Magazine comparo with the Turbo:
Notice that it pulls close to the Turbo, and in some straights continues to pull harder because it doesn't lose speed with the shifts. And this was a customer GT-R, delivered to the owner only a day before the test.
There is a similar result in Sport Auto's fahrberichte of the GT-R compared to the 997TT on the Nurburgring GP course.
So you're saying the ACR engineers adjusted the aero for the long back straight. Wouldn't that sacrifice the cornering speed?
Bouncing off the rev limiter...thanks for giving yet another explanation as to why the ACR wasn't as fast as it was. Based on the elevation, the ACR could be down almost 40 hp from its SAE net rating too.
Look at the R&T result with the ACR & GT-R on the speedway. The GT-R was faster than the ACR. And unlike the ACR, this GT-R did not have an engineer on hand to maximize the GT-R's performance here. Yet it still hit a higher maximum speed, as well as a higher avg.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...8_cvr_oval.pdf
Can you read english, that clearly means the NEXT LAP, not the one in question. This does not mean they had any symptoms of fuel issues on the record lap or they would have not tried to go even faster on the next one NO?
You are coming up with any pure nonsense you can find aren't you?
C&D at buttonwillow with Steve Millen? And you're using that for comparison? And without any regards to why kind of curve it is?
Are you joking me or what?
I'm not saying the engineers took all the wing out of the car, what I am saying is that they knew a large part of the ring is very high speed, so running max DF would have hindered the car more than helped it. There is no way to know the aero settings at one time vs another.
The ACR was slow on the speedway because the gearing was all wrong, I think they had to stay in 4th because 5th wouldn't allow them to make the turns, hence the result. Had nothing to do with outright speed.
MC12 was misfiring now too?
And more headwind?
Banned
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 342
From: Ponziville, AIG
Rep Power: 38
The ACR has a very low top speed. After 4th is up, the game is over.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 64
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/228650/
In all of your chest-beating, did you stop to think for just one moment: Why are there so many videos between the two Zonda F videos on supercarmovies.com? This is from Evo, 2008:
"Last year the team, with the help of Horacio Pagani himself, broke the production-car lap record with this very car. In the hot seat then, as now, was ALMS racer and Ring specialist Marc Basseng. Immediately after setting that record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned."
Fact: the two Zonda tests were hampered by fueling issues. The "nonsense" is you comparing two obviously underperforming Zondas to a car running under ideal conditions, and crying "cheating!"
I wasn't aware that Steve Millen drove for C&D at Buttonwillow. Do you have some evidence to support that? I'm still waiting on the Nissan press release saying they hit 290 kph twice on the 'Ring, heavy.
Yeah, and let's pretend this didn't happen either:
Avg G-Force thru Turn 1 on the oval
GT-R: 1.27
ACR: 1.16
Read the Evo article:
"The strong current of air that has been blowing overhead all day continues to send thick, sinister clouds across the heavens. In this high and steeply undulating part of western Germany the weather can change in an instant."
It's entirely possible these cars had headwinds on the straight.
But you're right, it was the Zonda that was misfiring, not the MC12.
Last edited by Guibo; Jun 18, 2009 at 01:22 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 64
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; correction: NOT misfiring
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.
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; correction: NOT misfiring
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.
Go ahead. Give it a shot.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
I still think you don't understand. The 7:27.82 time was the previous year, not in the same session as the Evo test. Look this article, dated October of 2007:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/228650/
In all of your chest-beating, did you stop to think for just one moment: Why are there so many videos between the two Zonda F videos on supercarmovies.com? This is from Evo, 2008:
"Last year the team, with the help of Horacio Pagani himself, broke the production-car lap record with this very car. In the hot seat then, as now, was ALMS racer and Ring specialist Marc Basseng. Immediately after setting that record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned."
Fact: the two Zonda tests were hampered by fueling issues. The "nonsense" is you comparing two obviously underperforming Zondas to a car running under ideal conditions, and crying "cheating!"
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the 7:27 lap did not have any fueling issues. The fact that the other lap was abandoned likely means it was done long before Dottinger which is the last part of the track, but AFTER the 7:27 lap was completed.
Oh, so the "kind of curve" matters now? Whatever happened to hp/wt?? It's amazing to me that a stripped down car on huge gumball tires with an engineer on hand to tweak the suspension and aero needs a certain "kind of curve" to beat a 3900-lb, 4-seat pig on runflats like the GT-R.
I wasn't aware that Steve Millen drove for C&D at Buttonwillow. Do you have some evidence to support that? I'm still waiting on the Nissan press release saying they hit 290 kph twice on the 'Ring, heavy.
Yes, the kind of curve always matters, you picked one curve from a magazine article on a 15 or so turn track to say the GT-R had a higher apex speed and used that for an example, I don't think you have much room for rationalizing that statement.
And what is max DF on the ACR? Isn't it 1000 lbs at 150 mph? Didn't the ACR reach 1000 lbs of DF very early on the straight (only 2 sec after passing the 1st overhead banner)? You were trying to have it both ways: high downforce (to be faster than all the other cars in the corner) and low downforce for less drag (and thus, should be faster than the GT-R). Without active aero (which the ACR does not have), you really can't have it both ways.
Again, you're assuming they ran the wing at max angle, which would be asinine on a high speed track like the ring. Maybe if you were tuning it, the car would have, but I think a real engineer would know better.
The ACR doesn't need max DF to be faster in the corners, and if you ever actually tracked a car or even have been around guys with adjustable wings, they hardly ever run full wing, ESPECIALLY on high speed tracks. For the simple fact that it kills top end negating cornering advantages.
But you obviously haven't, so I'll leave you to your ignorance.
The ACR was slow on the 'Ring straight because the gearing was all wrong. I think they had to stay in 4th because 5th wouldn't allow them to continue to accelerate hard, thus they rode the limiter, hence the result. Had nothing to do with Nissan cheating.
Yeah, and let's pretend this didn't happen either:
Avg G-Force thru Turn 1 on the oval
GT-R: 1.27
ACR: 1.16
Read the Evo article:
"The strong current of air that has been blowing overhead all day continues to send thick, sinister clouds across the heavens. In this high and steeply undulating part of western Germany the weather can change in an instant."
It's entirely possible these cars had headwinds on the straight.
But you're right, it was the Zonda that was misfiring, not the MC12.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/228650/
In all of your chest-beating, did you stop to think for just one moment: Why are there so many videos between the two Zonda F videos on supercarmovies.com? This is from Evo, 2008:
"Last year the team, with the help of Horacio Pagani himself, broke the production-car lap record with this very car. In the hot seat then, as now, was ALMS racer and Ring specialist Marc Basseng. Immediately after setting that record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned."
Fact: the two Zonda tests were hampered by fueling issues. The "nonsense" is you comparing two obviously underperforming Zondas to a car running under ideal conditions, and crying "cheating!"
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the 7:27 lap did not have any fueling issues. The fact that the other lap was abandoned likely means it was done long before Dottinger which is the last part of the track, but AFTER the 7:27 lap was completed.
Oh, so the "kind of curve" matters now? Whatever happened to hp/wt?? It's amazing to me that a stripped down car on huge gumball tires with an engineer on hand to tweak the suspension and aero needs a certain "kind of curve" to beat a 3900-lb, 4-seat pig on runflats like the GT-R.
I wasn't aware that Steve Millen drove for C&D at Buttonwillow. Do you have some evidence to support that? I'm still waiting on the Nissan press release saying they hit 290 kph twice on the 'Ring, heavy.
Yes, the kind of curve always matters, you picked one curve from a magazine article on a 15 or so turn track to say the GT-R had a higher apex speed and used that for an example, I don't think you have much room for rationalizing that statement.
And what is max DF on the ACR? Isn't it 1000 lbs at 150 mph? Didn't the ACR reach 1000 lbs of DF very early on the straight (only 2 sec after passing the 1st overhead banner)? You were trying to have it both ways: high downforce (to be faster than all the other cars in the corner) and low downforce for less drag (and thus, should be faster than the GT-R). Without active aero (which the ACR does not have), you really can't have it both ways.
Again, you're assuming they ran the wing at max angle, which would be asinine on a high speed track like the ring. Maybe if you were tuning it, the car would have, but I think a real engineer would know better.
The ACR doesn't need max DF to be faster in the corners, and if you ever actually tracked a car or even have been around guys with adjustable wings, they hardly ever run full wing, ESPECIALLY on high speed tracks. For the simple fact that it kills top end negating cornering advantages.
But you obviously haven't, so I'll leave you to your ignorance.
The ACR was slow on the 'Ring straight because the gearing was all wrong. I think they had to stay in 4th because 5th wouldn't allow them to continue to accelerate hard, thus they rode the limiter, hence the result. Had nothing to do with Nissan cheating.
Yeah, and let's pretend this didn't happen either:
Avg G-Force thru Turn 1 on the oval
GT-R: 1.27
ACR: 1.16
Read the Evo article:
"The strong current of air that has been blowing overhead all day continues to send thick, sinister clouds across the heavens. In this high and steeply undulating part of western Germany the weather can change in an instant."
It's entirely possible these cars had headwinds on the straight.
But you're right, it was the Zonda that was misfiring, not the MC12.
Did Chris Harris's car have a headwind too, to be slower by one second from 140-170 mph? 1 second at 170 mph is a long distance, espcially on an already flat car.
Like I've said before, the overboost button idea on the spec V came from somewhere, likely from that ring (ER) GT-R. Notice how quickly the the accel curve almost completely levels off.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 64
"Last year [2007] the team, with the help of Horacio Pagani himself, broke the production-car lap record with this very car. In the hot seat then [2007], as now [2008] , was ALMS racer and Ring specialist Marc Basseng. Immediately after setting that [2007] record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned. The team may have left with the record but there was some unfinished business too.
Now [2008] they’re back to go faster..."
--Evo Magazine, November [2008]
I think it's pretty clear that the 7:27.82 car did have fueling issues. How can you deny this?
You said Steve Millen was associated with this test. Can you provide more information on this?
Now, take a look at it again, a few seconds later, just after it has passed the overhead. Full 1000lbs of downforce.
If Dodge engineers tuned the car for the straight, why did it produce so much downforce so early? Why did it max out on the DF meter so soon on the straight? Does it really need 1000+ lbs of downforce on the straight? And wouldn't the ACR have been going about 150 by then? Dodge cites 1000 lbs of downforce at 150 mph in extolling the virtues of the ACR over the standard Viper coupe (100 lbs at the same speed).
The ACR doesn't need max DF to be faster in the corners, and if you ever actually tracked a car or even have been around guys with adjustable wings, they hardly ever run full wing, ESPECIALLY on high speed tracks. For the simple fact that it kills top end negating cornering advantages.
Where is Nissan's press release saying they hit 290 kph twice?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,571
From: Kirkland
Rep Power: 179
There is an instinctive reaction to conclude that an AWD car is automatically faster than a RWD car in the wet. This has been found to be erroneous on numerous occasions. Would it surprise you to know that the RWD Porsches (GT2, GT3, GT3 RS, Carrera S) are all faster on Sport Auto's wet handling track than the AWD Turbo?
Autocar ran an M3 against an S4, on a dry course, then the same course wetted down. Here were the results:
Dry
M3: 47.32 sec
S4: 48.01
Wet
M3: 53.94
S4: 55.91
When TopGear ran its M3 CSL test (genuine semi-slicks in the wet), it lapped their circuit about as fast as the Murcielago.
Autocar ran another test in 2005, running both a wet and a dry track. The AWD Mitsubishi Evo was slower in the wet than cars it had blitzed in the dry.
An AWD car is often more predictable at exploring the limits in the wet, but that doesn't mean it's always fastest.
Autocar ran an M3 against an S4, on a dry course, then the same course wetted down. Here were the results:
Dry
M3: 47.32 sec
S4: 48.01
Wet
M3: 53.94
S4: 55.91
When TopGear ran its M3 CSL test (genuine semi-slicks in the wet), it lapped their circuit about as fast as the Murcielago.
Autocar ran another test in 2005, running both a wet and a dry track. The AWD Mitsubishi Evo was slower in the wet than cars it had blitzed in the dry.
An AWD car is often more predictable at exploring the limits in the wet, but that doesn't mean it's always fastest.
On the contrary my friend, its all of the GTR guys that say that the GTR is a car designed to be all things to all people in all conditions. I know that RWD has many advantages and that the GTR's AWD system doesn't make it automatically better than its RWD competiton.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 64
^Thanks for the link.
Looks like the total drag area on the GT-R isn't quite as good as Nissan figured. Downforce, while much better than the Z06, doesn't seem that great. On par with the Turbo. There have been discrepancies between SA's downforce numbers and Ferrari's too. But this makes for a level comparison (same equipment used for all).
The GT-R is slower than the GT3 (on MPSC's) by 5.2 seconds on the wet-handling course.
Looks like, overall, Harris got closer to HvS's effort in the GT2 than he did in the GT-R.
276 kph on Doettinger Hohe straight is 1 kph slower than my estimation for the 7:29 GT-R.
Supertest score of 74 points beats 997TT (72), but not as high as GT3's (79). So, it's not only bribed US/UK mags that reached the same conclusion.
Looks like the total drag area on the GT-R isn't quite as good as Nissan figured. Downforce, while much better than the Z06, doesn't seem that great. On par with the Turbo. There have been discrepancies between SA's downforce numbers and Ferrari's too. But this makes for a level comparison (same equipment used for all).
The GT-R is slower than the GT3 (on MPSC's) by 5.2 seconds on the wet-handling course.
Looks like, overall, Harris got closer to HvS's effort in the GT2 than he did in the GT-R.
276 kph on Doettinger Hohe straight is 1 kph slower than my estimation for the 7:29 GT-R.
Supertest score of 74 points beats 997TT (72), but not as high as GT3's (79). So, it's not only bribed US/UK mags that reached the same conclusion.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 88
From: Oz
Rep Power: 29
Some details from the Sportauto GT-R Supertest.
0-100km/h: 4.1s (vs 3.8 for the 911t)
0-200km/h: 13.1s (vs 12.6 for the 911t)
Dotinger Hohe Speed: 276km/h (vs 282km/h for the 911t)
Tires: Dunlop SP Sport 600s (vs Michelin Pilot Sport Cups for the 911t)
Brakes: Standard Steelies (vs Porche Ceramics for the 911t)
Lap time: 7:38 (vs 7:54 for the 911t)
Note: VDC-R mode was used.
0-100km/h: 4.1s (vs 3.8 for the 911t)
0-200km/h: 13.1s (vs 12.6 for the 911t)
Dotinger Hohe Speed: 276km/h (vs 282km/h for the 911t)
Tires: Dunlop SP Sport 600s (vs Michelin Pilot Sport Cups for the 911t)
Brakes: Standard Steelies (vs Porche Ceramics for the 911t)
Lap time: 7:38 (vs 7:54 for the 911t)
Note: VDC-R mode was used.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 560
From: Sydney
Rep Power: 41
GTR and ZO6 has similar times in this track and the Nurburgring.
GTR is faster in this track and the Nurburgring.
ACR absolutely destroys all in this track and the Nurburgring.
As CH mentions the GTR isnt lacking in the handling department, the other cars do require a better class of drivers than the play station like GTR. What that shows is that the GTR lost allot of time on the straights. A longer track would have badly eroded the GTR's handling strengths, its heavy mass and 4WD system would have eaten its tires and brakes.....again confirmed by both Carmagazine and Driver Republic on their Nurburgring test.
[img]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9756/36899435.jpg[/img]
GTR is faster in this track and the Nurburgring.
ACR absolutely destroys all in this track and the Nurburgring.
As CH mentions the GTR isnt lacking in the handling department, the other cars do require a better class of drivers than the play station like GTR. What that shows is that the GTR lost allot of time on the straights. A longer track would have badly eroded the GTR's handling strengths, its heavy mass and 4WD system would have eaten its tires and brakes.....again confirmed by both Carmagazine and Driver Republic on their Nurburgring test.
[img]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9756/36899435.jpg[/img]