The 0-130 time is looks consistent with an improper correction for altitude.
So when the telemetry data completely undermines, no, destroys, your 600 hp theory, you want to defer to a guy like monaro? LOL!

That's not proof that Nissan is doing it. Hennessey's big money makers have mostly been traction-limited cars anyway.


Deuuuce, 120 hp is not going to net only a 2-3 mph improvement. Look at the Novidem GT-RS vs stock ZR1 numbers. They're identical. And that GT-R is still a ways short of 600 hp.


Show me an independent tester who has driven with the *****-out comittment of Suzuki, and with VDC off. Oh, that's right. You can't.

 

I don't read those german tests.but here is one from US road&track:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...6911_chart.pdf

0-60mph all 3.4
then
0-120mph
Z06 10.7
GT-R 12.7
997TT 11.5

I can see you researched and talked a lot here.May I ask you what car you got there in your garage?All your posts on 6speedonline are pro-GTR bits...So you have a R35?Or you not even drove a R35 yet you just researched lots internet stuffs n talk lots here??

 

Shame Shame Shame Just because they aren't old enough to drive doesn't mean they don't know everything about cars.

 

Yes I agree with that but some fellas here just sounds like they are NISSAN's engineer or testing drivers,they know everything and they believing in everything positive just like they built the GT-R!!!!

So,are they?!

 

HOLY, this BS arguement is still going on. Guys get a life. ALL "Production" Ring times are BS. Those cars that do those times are not stock.

They may have stock brakes, maybe suspension, but a alignment that suits the track better,softer compound tires and sure as S*** they messed with the ECU for more power just so all the people that actually believe that they are stock can waste their time arguing about in online forums.

And they is no way for us to know for sure what exactly they did to improve on the cars lap times. Like I said before....

Just let it go and enjoy whatever you drive as much as you can.

 

Maybe you should read those German tests. Don't you want to make an informed decision? The articles are online, and you can use any online translator to get the point of their findings. The lap charts are online as well.

Thanks for reminding me of that test. Look at the lap chart from that same test:



In the highlighted part, you can see its acceleration curve is most definitely not steeper than either the Z06 or the Turbo. But because those cars need to shift, they lose time to the GT-R; or put another way, the GT-R does not lose the time it otherwise would, were it not equipped with DCT. With a DCT, the Z06 likely would have reached as high (or higher) a peak speed, even with the GT-R carrying more speed in the previous corner.
Notice the lowest-speed corner. The Turbo is faster than the GT-R, and the GT-R is no faster than the Z06. Like I mentioned, the tighter and more convoluted a track, the more apparent the GT-R's mass becomes. A Ford Focus RS outcorners it in very tight turns.
But in the high-speed sections, it's very different. R&T's analysis from the test:
"In the esses, where high-speed transitional stability is at a premium, the GT-R weaves its way through at a 101.2-mph average, 5 mph quicker than the Z06 and a whopping 8 mph faster than the 911 Turbo."
This car had the stickier Dunlops. On a different day at this same track, C&D found a similar result in a GT-R on Bridgestones. Through the fast esses, it was faster than the Z06 by 3.3 mph and slightly faster than even the Viper ACR.

Now, here's your acceleration data from that test, re-imagined with the Z06 having a DCT. Zero increase in power. Zero decrease in weight. Yet, it would be noticeably faster than it already is.


As for what's in my garage, that's hardly relevant. (I drive a tricycle. ) And no, I have no intention of even buying a GT-R. I'm just here to discuss whether a car like the GT-R can be that fast on the 'Ring. Don't try to read anymore into it.

All of my posts are pro-GT-R? That's false. Some of my posts here don't even address the GT-R. Is it pro-GT-R to say that the GT-R would be beaten by the GT2/CGT/Enzo/etc if those cars were tested the same way that Nissan tested? I don't think it is. And if you knew anything about my posts on other forums, you'd know I'm not a blind Nissan fan. I called out their R33 time and the alleged R34 Z-Tune 1/4 mile time years ago on other forums.

I have not driven a GT-R, and I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned that. I'm taking views by those who have driven it (and driven it to its true limit) to try to explain how it can do what it does. Contrary to the belief of GT-R fanboys and anti-fanboys alike, it's doing absolutely nothing to defy the laws of physics. Instead of pulling a hair-brained power figure out of my a$$ (why not just say it was a 700 hp or 800 hp GT-R that Nissan uses?), I'm taking the views of these people and combining with all of the available data to figure out if it had much more power (the answer seems to be "no" with the 7:38 S1 GT-R pulling only 1 kph more on the straight than Harris in the S1) and racing slicks (seems to be "no" again; the 7:29 GT-R is pulling g's similar to Sport Auto's car). Does this not seem like a more reasonable approach then pulling power figures out of thin air?
The point is: If a stock GT-R (which we know has a more moderate acceleration curve in a straight line than both the Z06 and Turbo) can pull these times and slot in between the Z06 and Turbo on the DH straight, it only stands to reason that a 600-hp GT-R would be much, much faster on the straight. My estimate of 281 kph on DH for the 7:26 GT-R still has it 2 kph slower than the supertested Turbo. And if my estimate is optimistic like it was for the S1 GT-R, then the 7:26 car is slower still, relative to the Turbo.

Check the acceleration curve for the 577-hp GT-R:

 

ZR1 (tested by Motor Trend*)
ZR1, AB (tested by Auto Bild in Germany)
GT-R (tested by Motor Trend*)
GT-R, AB (tested by Auto Bild in Germany)
GT-RS (Novidem GT-RS tested by Auto Bild in Germany)
GT2 (tested by Motor Trend*)
* = same-day test

 

No, I am not. If there is an error in my analysis, please point to it. Debate the topic(s) at hand, not the debater. I don't have to be a Nissan engineer to pick apart your Enzo and ZR1 examples.

As for your 540-hp Cobb Stage 1, do you think it is faster than a stock 997 Turbo? Have you timed it, or compared it head to head against a Turbo at 100+ mph speeds? I'm just curious.

 

This thread should be closed. A single poster has turned this into nothing resembling anything useful. It's basically just a troll fest now.

 

Heavychevy states there was a correction. And if there was, that means the car actually ran faster due to elevation.

I didn't give the incremented boost example from Hennessy as proof, I answered your obvious ignorance of it. Any modded GT-R probably won't have that feature, either. The factory is able to play with the ECU at will.

2-3mph isn't the question. The C&D GT-R was obviously making huge horsepower in 4th gear (above 126mph) and above 147mph the GT-R is in 6th gear, an OD ratio. Odd, isn't that 270kph?

Oh, all these independent tests are NOT *****-out with VDC off? They were just coasting around the track? Yet all the others were at 10/10ths?

Monaro pointed out the data showing the GT-R was faster than stated. That's all we needed.

 

@ NewSong:
LOL. Says the guy who claimed a Zonda F ClubSport isn't street legal.

One poster has given evidence that Suzuki's S1 run on the DH straight netted a speed only 1 kph faster than Chris Harris in an S1 car. One poster has shown the GT-R's first "290 kph" moment was due to wheelspin. But then DR readers said the same thing when viewing the telemetry months ago. As did Rennteam members.


This is for heavy
Sport Auto GT-R fahrbericht
Google translation:
"Even if the Nissan GT-R confidently into the ring thrown under 7:40 minutes may sound a bit bold, where the author, despite a still damp passage in one of the key kurves of the boiler Chen stalled time of 7:50 minutes but one from: The GT-R is a hit."

WorldLingo:
"Even if by Nissan for the GT-R self-confidently into the ring thrown the time of „under 7,40 minutes “may sound somewhat bold, then the time of 7,50 minutes, driven from the author despite a still damp passage in one of the key curves of the Kesselchens, proves nevertheless one: The GT-R is a racer."

The 7:50 time is referenced to show how effective the GT-R is on the 'Ring, even with the damp Kesselchens. It doesn't say anything about the GT-R's true potential being 7:50. The GT-R's true potential is shown when part of the track is still damp? LOL. Try to explain that twisted logic.

 

That doesn't make any sense. If you're agreeing with heavy that they applied a correction due to the elevation, then the corrected time would be a faster time than what the car actually ran. Ie, the car actually was slower than the time printed in the mag.

Nope, not ignorance. I already know other cars can have higher boost in different gears. But with the traction afforded to the GT-R because of its AWD, this shouldn't even matter. Got it??

I'm not sure what your point is. The "600 hp ringer" was only 1 kph faster than the customer car Harris drove.

Nope. VDC-R was used for the supertest. According to heavy, HvS drives at DE pace (his words, not mine).

Yes, the Nissan tests were 10/10ths. Do you even know what Time Attack means? Did you even watch the videos? Show me any video where another driver is that aggressive in the GT-R. Suzuki on the 7:29 time:
"'The conditions were perfect. I don't think the car could go faster."

Whatever Monaro pointed out, I'm sure he's either reading the data wrong or twisting it as he sees fit. Tell me what's wrong with my analysis of Nissan's telemetry. Are you one who believes the GT-R really did hit 290 at Schwedenkreuz and at the purely straight section of DH? Surely, all of those things I showed can't be by pure coincidence.

What do you make of the acceleration chart I posted of the ZR1's, GT-R's, 577-hp Novidem GT-RS, and the GT2?

 

If the time on the test sheet is corrected, that means it ran faster than 124mph since it's at 4200ft. It would be a downward adjustment.

Driveline reliability and even more obvious cheating are the obvious reasons why boost is turned back in the lower gears.

290kph twice and once attributed to wheelspin? Is that right? No one else drives it at 10/10ths is BS.

The chart isn't clear due overlapping traces.

 

I still believe it did 7:26 or whatever it is... Car is a legend... I'd take it over corvette.

 

I don't think that's how it works. heavy's explanation makes more sense: If the GT-R ran something like 119 @ 4200', then the corrected value (printed in the mag) would take into account the elevation and increase that value. It wouldn't decrease.
Likewise, the time would go down. Not up! You're saying that the car actually did something like an 11.1-11.2 @ 4200' and then to correct for the altitude, C&D increased its ET to 11.5? That doesn't make any sense. Altitude tends to rob power and thus make the car go slower. You don't then report an even slower time.

I doubt there would be a driveline issue in gears 2 and 3.

Is this clear enough for you?

For both the 7:29 lap and the 7:38 lap, the trend is the same:
1) the acceleration is linear approaching Schwedenkreuz (slight downhill makes it look like a straight line)
2) just as he starts the incline, you can see the acceleration leveling off
3) suddenly, there's a completely non-linear rate of acceleration. A spike. The acceleration curve that was tapering off due to the incline suddenly goes damn near VERTICAL.
LOL, such are the variables that the 7:38 car actually appears to have a slightly steeper acceleration curve at that part of the track than the 7:29.

Go back to the first page of this thread. Look at what I say about the revs when Suzuki hits Schwedenkreuz in the 7:26 video. He's far, far below 290 kph.
It's the same for the 7:38 video in the S1 car. Suzuki goes airborne right at about 1:11.7x. Take a look at his speeds leading up to the jump at Schwedenkruez. At 1:10:23, he's coming up the hill @ 259 kph:


1.15s later @ 1:11.38, he has gained 5 kph, right before he goes airborne:


If it took him 1.15s to gain 5 kph, how can he magically gain more than 5x's that amount of speed in only 1/3rd the time? There has got to be some point where you guys put aside your bias and look at the chart and the videos and think: does 290 kph make any sense??

Nope, not BS. You haven't shown me a single driver who has driven it with the same aggression and comittment as Suzuki. It's not exactly an intuitive car to drive to its true limits.