Stock GT-R
-originally tested by Motor Trend, but reprinted in Auto Bild
-timed on Ford's grippy APG surface
-corrected for weather & altitude

vs

585 PS (577 hp) GT-R
-tested by Auto Bild
-uncorrected



The 647 PS stock ZR1 in the same test with the stock GT-R did 160-250 in 10.5, while this 585 PS GT-R did it in 10.6. 11.4 for the GT2 also on test.

When tested in Germany, the ZR1's times aren't quite so fast. Its 1/4 mile time have ranged from 11.35 to 11.8. This 577 hp GT-R did it in 11.43. A US-tested 600hp GT-R should be good for ~11.1 @ ~130. And thus a 600-hp claim for C&D's car doesn't make any sense. It probably does make sense if you're applying a NA correction factor to a turbocharged car tested at 4200'.

 

I totally agree, this Guibo guy actually counts pixels and tries to use that as proof, how pathetic. He hasnt even connected the runs to his graph, as requested.

We dont even know whether that run was a stock one, which car ran it, what time it got etc........his picture certainly doent look like a Nissan released graph. Its practially a jumbled mess and not very readable. I mean seriously, can you honestly take that seriously? .

Where did Guibo find the graph? I saw it before but that wasnt for the 7:29 time. Its a very easy task Guibo just give us the link with the graph and the associated Nissan information.

Unlike Guibo's this one is an actual back to back test with driver comments. Notice that Chris Harris drove a 7:55.9 with the GTR, with the stars falling into place he believes that the GTR could do at best 15 seconds faster which would make it 7:40.9 and smack back within arms distance to HvS's fantastic time. Ive always maintained that HvS's time is true, correct and representative of what a stock car can do, I guess in a round about way Chris Harris agrees with my views.


Sorry heavy for bumping in...........

2 seconds faster on his final lap is within the relms of probability and believable. A time of 7:27 is just pure garbage on Nissan's part.

 

The GT2 has very good rubber, even for the track. The GT2 is clearly better on the long Nurburgring than the GTR, especially since Sport Auto was able to match factory numbers and Driver Republic on a head to head test clearly beat the GTR. On a more normal smaller/tighter track the GT2 is also quite a bit faster (again proven by Sport Auto). However the GT2 needs a good driver with ***** to drive it to its potential. Again read back to the Driver Republic comment.

 

The Zr1 and most American cars have historically been difficult to drive fast on a traight line, especially for a novice. One of the main reason for this has been because most American cars like the Viper and Corvette has a mountain amount of low end TORQUE (wheelspin for the novice), another reason is the lack of launch control features.

Horsepower @ wheels: 556.41 Torque @ wheels: 529.19



AMERICAN TEST

EUROPEAN TEST

 

ZR1 vs Novidem GT-RS. Figures by Auto Bild.



ZR1 has 25% better power/wt ratio. It's faster off the line, 0.3s to 50 kph ahead of the GT-RS. By 200, same gap: 0.3s. Despite larger-displacement V8, supercharger (no wait for exhaust gas lag), and much lower weight, GT-RS has the ZR1 covered in-gear. True 600-hp GT-R will be slightly faster still...
That C&D GT-R did not have 600 hp. Not even close. The data sheet actually says 1/4 mile trap was 124, so is even closer to the faster customer GT-R's (on record). 2-3 mph. If the correction factor is BS (like heavy says), more like 119, then it's actually slower than those fastest customer GT-R's. That's merely medium-high. Hope you figure that into your "prediction", Deuuuce.

 

I never accepted a 5mph correction.

Once again, it's any sub 7:30 time.

Not necessarily. Depends on the gear. And if the correction was made, it would showed the car running a slower time from that test, not a faster time.



No, if you would re-read it, I stated the Turbo would not drop below 7:30. Stop misquoting me and attributing things to me that I never stated.

Also, to answer your question, it is no. The PDK transmission will bring it closer to the GT-2 and Porsche knows it.

 

QFT.
If Porsche's mystery factory driver can extract 14 seconds from HvS's best, then it's logical that a Nissan test driver could extract 12 seconds from HvS's time with an even more comitted time-attack mentality and driving with VDC off. 14 seconds is believable, yet 12 is proof of cheating. Haha.
FWIW, a European GT-R owner who has driven his car on the 'Ring noted:
"I drove the whole Ring with VDC R, but honestly it is slowing me down. There are some places where the VDC stops the power without any reason. One is where the asphalt changes in corner so it thinks it´s slipping but it´s not. And the second one is Carussel."

Give Rohrl enough laps to find the right weather conditions (and none of this passing 11 cars crap) and I think a low 7:20's is in the cards for the GT2.

 

Even @ 124 mph, that's only 2-3 mph faster than some stock customer GT-R's, Deuuuce.

Then why are you nit-picking a 7:29 vs 7:27 telemetry data? If you want to see the unaltered telemetry on both the 7:38 and 7:29 data, it's here:


Top line is for the upper limit for the car's peak speed anywhere on track (290 kph)
Below that is the lower limit (61.9 kph, likely @ Wehrsefein)
Bottom section is (I'm guessing) the L/R g's. It shows a peak of 1.4g in either direction. Even if it's not on the screen, Chris Harris noted on DR:
"The data trace that Mizuno is proud to take me through suggests that Suzuki is being ridiculously modest. The peak lateral G figure is 1.4 - and the car averages 1.3G from corner to corner."
This is consistent with the cornering g's published by Sport Auto. They too recorded 1.3g from corner to corner, with a peak of 1.45g.
Bottom scale is time, in seconds.

All I did was enlarge, adjust for contrast, rotate to get vertical/horizontal alignment, and move the bottom scale up for easier reading. Nothing was "cut out", "cut up," or omitted that would affect the calculations in any way.
With this chart, I was able to determine:
1) Suzuki's speed at Schwedenkruez was most certainly not 290 kph like heavychevy (probably?) continues to believe to this very day,
2) when Suzuki really did hit 290 kph (at Tiergarten and not on the straight portion of DH like certain conspiracy theorists think), accurate to mere tenths of a second on the video
3) where Suzuki lost time on the 7:38 vid due to the wet sections
4) Suzuki's speed on the straight portion of DH was only 4 kph higher than Harris's speed (video turns out to show only 1 kph higher)

You think all of this turned out that way by mere coincidence??

Deuuuce, there's no difference in the acceleration curves between the 7:38 graph and the 7:29. They're the same; there's absolutely no meaningful difference. I would like to hear from you: How much more power would a factory "ringer" GT-R need in order to gain 1 kph on Chris Harris's speed on the straight?

I'm providing methods by which we can determine the relative speeds of all of these cars, using the telemetry given by Nissan; the data points of speed in DR, Sport Auto, and AMuS; the videos of Suzuki's laps; the correlation between distance and time required to cover that distance; the correlation between speeds calculated which turns out to be supported by RPM data visible in the 7:26 lap.
What have you brought forward as evidence of cheating, besides your obvious bias? A power figure for a GT-R that would match a ZR1 in acceleration...

You're saying this wondercar is able to unleash 600 hp but only in certain gears...uhmmm...ok.
I'm not quite following you on your correction statement. What I read from the test was that it took place at 4200' elevation. If C&D applied a NA correction factor to this car when they should not have, then the times listed in the mag would be faster than what the car actually ran. Csaba in his video even explains in the video how unscientific it is to be applying these correction factors, nevermind the other variables at play.

I meant 7:30. My bad. The point still stands (and it's obvious I meant 7:30 as the times I referenced for the GT2 were under 7:38 anyway).

What I'm saying is there could be other reasons why the Turbo might not dip below 7:30; it doesn't have to be about technical reasons. They can still artificially limit its lap time if they wanted to, in order to maintain the pecking order of their models. I don't think there were any suicides at Porsche when Sport Auto found the 997.2 w/PDK to be 2 seconds faster than the Turbo; in Porsche's testing, the Turbo was faster and that's all that mattered.

 

The problem with Sport Auto's 'ring figures is that if it's not a 911 you have to subtract 10s to get a representative time. This isn't about the GTR, it's about the LP560, the R8 V10, the Scuderia, the R8 V8 etc. etc. An S2 GT3 is as fast as a Scuderia and faster than an LP560? I mean please? Try using your PWR theories to explain that. Try using your gear-shift theories to explain that. Try using other test results to explain that.

And DR? Please. They even managed to get a Ford GT to beat a GTR in a lap time comparison. A god damn Ford GT, which laps Ford's own handling circuit slower than their Focus RS allegedly.

 

Your funny, its clear to everyone that a STOCK GTR cant possibly beat the ZR1 especially on a long track. Now your trying to change the topic and comparing a MODIFIED GTR to a stock ZR1, again, quite pathetic.

Heres nother one for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4KYRUUgDIo

Also, most STOCK GTR's have been trapping 114-118 (Car and Driver even drove one for 111mph), one that traps 124 is very very unusual and I would start to get tempted to call B/S when it creeps into that region.

An early test GTR (I dont know if it was provided by Nissan) came close to 3 flat and very very low 11 seconds in the quarter. Why can this clearly modified GTR get close to a very low 11 quarter mile? Clearly the rearly batch were warmed over versions, to impress the press (made clear by Car and Driver).

 

Now this is very interesting, the Nissan test GTR reached a top speed on 290kph on two different occasions. Sport Auto's stock test GTR was only able to reach 276 and 260kph on those two sections. Clearly something is amiss. It shouldnt be that hard to to achieve a simiar top speed, especially with the GTR, just put your foot flat to the floor and let the DCT work its magic.

Discrepancies like these just make me more and more suspicious of Nissan's mythical time.

NISSAN TEST


SPORT AUTO TEST

 

Oh well been months and months you guys still battling about the GT-R's lap time...

Ok I finally bought my self a JDM GT-R now,Drove it couple of weeks already,did a cobb tune for it.Being a 997tt+GT-R owner now I believe I can drop couple of words:

1.GT-R's accle. after 100mph is totally shxt compare to 997tt or Z06!Even I modded the 540hp cobb stage 1 it still not as fast as a stock GT2 after 100mph.I can feel it,after 3rd gear it accle. like an elephant!
2.GT-R's handle definitely better than stock 997tt,it has smarter suspension system and let you feel safer into hard corners.It rocks on track!!

add above points together,I believe a stock GT-R should do a ring lap as fast as the 997tt by professional test driver around 7:40ish. 7:26 or 7:29 are unbelieveable cheating time from NISSAN for sure,it no way to be as fast as a ZR1 or ENZO.That car nissan used should have 600hp under the bonnet.Otherwise it just a NOWAYNOWAYNOWAYNOWAY!!

 

The problem is that the GTR is geared differently it also doesnt have enough power to pull away from the other 600+hp supercars along the long Nurburgring.

If the GTR's strong suit isnt pulling away on the main straights then it must be in taking turns better. However 1.4 simply doesnt cut it in the 7:20's league. The GT3 has shown to be able to take turns quicker than the GTR. The ACR is definately quicker than the GTR.

The only way a GTR can possibly get in the 7:20's is by using a modified version, 480hp and 1.4G's simply cant cut it and definately wont achieve a 7:20's.

Quote:

"The data trace that Mizuno is proud to take me through suggests that Suzuki is being ridiculously modest. The peak lateral G figure is 1.4 - and the car averages 1.3G from corner to corner."

Have a look at the G's achieved by the ACR, more like 1.5G average. So lets assume that Sport Auto's car achieved a similar G's around the corner (as you alluded to). It must mean that in order for the Nissan car to run 12 seconds faster it must have more power to help it gain the time through the straights. BUT how can one GTR have substantially more power if Sport Auto had a STOCK/healthy model? Does this mean that Nissan used a ringer?

Heavy isnt the only one doing some head scrathing. I CAN CLEARLY SEE "VEHICLE SPEED 290" follow the line to the right and you will notice that this speed was achieved TWICE. Look, ive even highlighted it for your viewing pleasure.



Our evidence is the ones you presented. Look at the vehicle velocity for the Nissan test, Sport Auto test and Driver Republic test. We are not even modifying with the graphs.

LOOK AT THE RESPECTIVE SPEEDS.
NISSAN

SPORT AUTO

DRIVER REPUBLIC

 

Again, it's the 0-130mph time. And I'm nitpicking anything under 7:30. I'll defer to Monaro regarding the telemetry aspect. You're both putting a lot of time into it.


Hennessy has been doing it for years, allowing more boost in the higher gears.

The ZR1's fastest trap speed with an expert driver (Ranger) is 129mph. MT did 130mph on a non-NHRA timed airport runway. The heavier GT-R, with 600hp, AWD and with different gearing is going to be closer to the mid 120s, especially with incremented boost control.

I cannot say C&D did a correction on that test, but the 0-130mph time is the key indicator.


Independent testers won't be able to get a sub 7:30 from the new Turbo, just like they can't get below 7:30 from the GT-R. Porsche isn't worried about comparisons to the current GT2, I'm sure.

 

And yet HvS managed to slot the GT-R neatly between the two on the straight.
Z06: 270 kph
GT-R: 276
997TT: 283

He was also faster than the Z06 at the other high-speed sections (Schwedenkreuz, Fuchsroehre, Kesselchen, Anfahrt-Schwalbenschwanz).

ZR1: much less development time on the 'Ring, and on their timed lap, messy mistakes and a strong headwind on the final straight. Apples vs oranges.
Enzo: timed during blustery/windy conditions, and with failed dampers! Who says 7:20 is impossible with the right conditions? Again, apples vs oranges.

The 7:38 S1 car driven by Suzuki was only 1 kph faster on the straight than the stock customer S1 car driven by Chris Harris. The acceleration curve for the 7:38 S1 car is identical to that of the 7:29 car. Logical conclusion...stock customer cars are making 600 hp?!

Take a look at this graph by Sport Auto of the Nissan-supplied Spec V test car vs the 997TT on the Nurburgring GP circuit:



The Spec V does not represent a meaningful advancement in performance over the standard GT-R. The acceleration and deceleration curves (compared to the Turbo) are very similar to what Car Magazine found when testing a stock customer car against a Porsche-supplied Turbo last year.
The GT-R is clearly making up time in 2-3 key areas:
1) the speed of the shifts; the Turbo is losing time here, no question, just as in the Car comparo
2) higher cornering speeds
3) more speed maintained in the braking zones; it appears that the GT-R's stability under braking means it can be more accurately trail-braked than the Turbo, even if its outright stopping power isn't as good as the Turbo's; in the corner where they give the cornering speeds and and g reading, the GT-R is slightly better, only 0.05g and 3 kph faster. But if you look at the corner as a whole (and not just a peak figure at one single point), the GT-R is obviously maintaining higher speed over a longer distance. And it's even more apparent in the previous corner.
Peak speeds and peak cornering g's are interesting to consider, but they don't tell you the whole story of what's going on during a lap. It's those crucial bits in between that don't appear anywhere on a spec sheet that make the difference of several seconds over a 7.5 minute lap. One car could very well be pulling 0.1g higher peak g than another, but if that other car is faster at corner entry and corner exit, then the net amount of time could be pretty much identical. There's also the difference in lines to consider: taking a tighter radius line could net the same peak cornering g as a wider line, but the wider line could be faster overall.
For peak speeds, one car could have an identical speed to another, yet still be faster over the same straight stretch of road. Just as a simple example (showing the benefit of a car with DCT vs one w/o, both with the same acceleration curve):



The red line is intentionally positioned to show a delayed start and a very slightly lower peak speed than the blue line. Yet we can clearly see a difference in time advantage to the red.

In the supertest, the GT2 monstered the GT-R on the straight. No question. 293 kph vs 276. We know the GT2 can outbrake the GT-R. In the supertest, the GT2 showed similar cornering speeds overall. But look at the final sector time: the GT-R is quicker, despite reaching a speed 17 kph slower than the GT2 on the straight. In fact, the GT-R was slower in all of the previous 4 sections, yet on the very fastest section, it was quicker than the GT2, despite that 17 kph handicap, and despite the braking from very high speed.