I truly can't say. I am not a good enough driver on the Ring to really judge. I know the Ring and how difficult some of the sections are, but I have never driven a GTR, much less one on the Ring. Its one of those things that you have to experience to understand. You really learn what any of these cars are capable of. Its nothing like driving on a nice country road with lots of switchbacks. The first time I was on the Ring, I was in disbelief as to how much grip modern sports cars have. You go through sections and turns at speeds that you don't believe are physically possible.

 

So why are factory Nissan GT-Rs so fast at the 'Ring when 3rd party production models are slower? And why, with its super aggressive gearing, is it slower than a Z-06 and GT3 and MUCH slower than an ACR at Laguna Seca?

Here is what I think: Nissan uses their higher hp car(s) to do durability testing and internet drama. When the first one C&D tested that trapped 124mph AND hit 130mph in 12.1 seconds, 1.6 seconds QUICKER than the next quickest model EVER tested by them, the ECU itself may be stock, but the software code is NOT.

 

A few days after that C&D article was published a member over at nagtroc posted scans of the entire article. Not long after, the freelance photographer who did that shoot for C&D decided to post, just to let us know that he wasn't exactly happy about the pics being reproduced.

He also filled us in on many details about that story that C&D chose not to mention for some reason. The car that C&D used to get those numbers was a Nissan test mule and clearly and obviously so. The car was missing most of it's interior and there were wires all through the cabin with multiple laptops running various fuel maps etc. for testing.

Basically C&D was completely aware of the fact that the car was definitely not production spec but they still used it to get numbers and then chose not to mention a word about this to their readers.

What shocked me was that a few months later Csaba Csere decided to publicly accuse Nissan of "manipulating" the ECU in order to get results, as though it was all some big secret and C&D was innocent and unaware of the car's condition.

Essentially, C&D used the GT-R to create a **** storm and attract readers. Two weeks prior to C&D's artice R&T tested a US production spec GT-R and trapped 11.8/116mph which is precisely the range that owner vehicles are producing. In fact the average owner run ET for a stock USDM GT-R is 118mph.

 

even if its not stock, even IF it runs more boost even IF it has 600 hp which is what it should have had in first place with its weght... Isnt it still amazing?

 

This is what I think trumps any argument. Its still a GTR.

I dont know why people fight against it so much?

 

None of those 3rd party production models have been tested the same way Nissan tested. The most important variable is the driver. Notice that none of the other Nissan drivers can match Suzuki's time. Dirk Schoysman is a pretty good Skyline specialist, and has 14K laps of the 'Ring under his belt (though perhaps not all in Nissans). I have a hunch Nissan rely on Suzuki to do these timed laps for a reason.
Sport Auto drove with VDC-R; Suzuki doesn't. Horst von Saurma, driving the GT-R the same day that Suzuki set the 7:38 lap, was 12 seconds slower than Suzuki. HvS and Nissan both noted that Kesselchen was damp for their tests.

Slower than a Z06 in a straight line, yes. Not on a track on the same day. To my knowledge, the GT-R has gone head to head against the Mk1 997 GT3 on three separate occasions. Each time the GT-R was faster.
The GT-R likes a faster track. Notice that the ACR beat the GT-R convincingly on the autocross, but was beaten by the GT-R on the speedway in same-day, same-driver testing by R&T. On the 'Ring, the Viper's downforce and gearing killed it on the final straight, and the gearing affected it elsewhere; the driver had to either ride the limiter for periods of time, or lose time with shifting (sometimes, it's better to ride the limiter for awhile, especially as the ACR is not noted for a great shift quality). There are also many, many more gearshifts on the 'Ring than on Laguna Seca. The GT-R will be making up time during those shifts.The 'Ring isn't as hard on brakes as other tracks; it's a momentum track, and there are long sections that allow the brakes to cool. All of these seemingly little things add up.
On the other hand, Randy Pobst did seem comfortable with the GT-R's snap oversteer on Laguna Seca. Ultimately, we are talking about an inexperienced GT-R driver's performance relative to another GT-R driver who is for sure experienced.

Yet one of the 'Ring mules tested by TopGear was slower on an autobahn roll than a 997 Turbo. If Nissan wanted to conjure up internet drama, shouldn't this GT-R have killed the Turbo on the autobahn?

 

Dont know if Im getting your meaning right because Im not sure why the "speedway" was brought up when Laguna Seca was mentioned. One has nothing to do with the other. Totally different types of tracks. Reason for the GTR win at the Speedway had nothing to do with the GTR but everything to do with the ACR's downforce bits. Sans the aero bits its a 202mph car. I know, run what you brung, and the GTR did beat the ACR on that speedway track "FACT"! But it wasnt because of the GTR's handling prowess or power so the argument for the GTR on fast tracks is not rendered relevant because of the "speedway" results. I usually get what you post but not clear on the logic behind this argument. Not getting at you btw just discussing.

Case in point, same day, same driver at VIR, which is a FAST track much more comparable to the type of track Laguna Seca is instead of a speedway, the ACR destroyed the GTR by 7 seconds in one lap. As much as I love the GTR it will not handle the ACR on any fast tracks, besides a speedway where the ACR's aero bits will hamper it. The GTR is so good I think it spoils all of us into thinking it can take on any car and it has for the most part. But imho there are a few cars it just cant handle and the ACR is one of them. This version of the GTR isnt meant to and thats no shame or knock. I really hope the Spec-V will have someting for the ACR but the base GTR is not in the ACR's league.

 

No one, on either side of this GTR debate will ever know for 100% certainty what is the absolute truth. Really sucks that something as simple and pure as a car test has to get mired in needless politics. Sucks to hear this and I dont doubt its true.

 

Actually C&D did disclose it was a test mule. The "Real Horsepower" article by C&D disclosed all the test results of the cars in a summary.

Actually yes. Shows what handling, AWD, aggressive gearing and fast DCT shifting can make up for hundreds of pounds of extra weight.

Interesting observations, thanks. Remember whatever Nissan loans to a show or publication can easily have a tweaked ECU. The only way is to test the Nissan car before the ECU can be accessed.


So I wonder what experienced owners are finding for track times vs. owners of other cars?

 

Not everything was due to the downforce, though that was a part of it. The ACR was hampered by its gearing as well.
The GT-R wasn't just faster on the fastest portion of the speedway. There, it was only 1.25 mph faster than the ACR. The GT-R pulled more g's in the speedway's Turn 1, 1.27g vs 1.16g. And it maintained a higher avg speed: 137.9 vs 133.9. If the GT-R was only 1.25 mph faster than the ACR on the straight, and it maintained an average 4 mph faster, does it stand to reason that its minimum speed was also higher than the ACR's?
It also surpassed the Lamborghini on the speedway, and opened up its advantage over the Z06 in a huge way. You can't claim that downforce was hindering both the Lambo and the Z06. Wouldn't you say that it was the GT-R's handling prowess that made this possible? All of this without the giant wing and splitter and attending mechanic that the ACR had.
The only car in that entire test which had an engineer on hand to tweak the car for each venue was the ACR. The engineers could have run the car without the wing and splitter. In other tests, they had taken off at least the splitter for the street portion.

As on the speedway, the ACR did lose time on the final straight to the GT-R on the straight. You can't deny that. Even on the very fast back section where there was no headwind, it only pulled out about 0.66 second on the GT-R from Aremberg, through high-speed Kesselchen, until braking for Klostertal 1.

VIR is longer, but the % difference that the GT-R was slower went down, compared to Laguna Seca.

None of this points to the GT-R cheating at the 'Ring.

 

I hope you are not implying that Nissan tweaked the ECU for less power for the TopGear comparo. That wouldn't make any sense if they were trying to make headlines for the GT-R.
What about all of those customer cars that have outrun various Porsches on other tracks? The GT-R used by the Stig for Topgear and in Autocar's Best Driver's Car comparo turned out to be no faster than a customer GT-R fresh off the boat tested by Evo.

How "tweaked" was the ECU for the GT-R in this test? I've added M3 numbers from another C&D test for comparison.


In another C&D test, the GT-R beat the Turbo on a 1.5-mile roadcourse by 1.1s. Here's how they compared in acceleration.
1/4 mile
GT-R: 12.1 @ 115 (again, slower than customer cars)
Turbo: 11.8 @ 120
0-140
GT-R: 19.3
Turbo: 16.6

In an R&T test, where the GT-R beat the Z06 and Turbo convincingly on track, here's how they performed in acceleration.

11.8 @ 116.5 is no faster than customer cars.

 

Auto Bild has an article with the ZR1 timed on the 'Ring. It got 7:41.5. I hope monaro does with this time what he has done with the GT-R: look at the times purely in a vacuum and ignore the conditions of the tests. There can only be one conclusion: GM cheated. 7:40's is a long way from 7:20's, all independent tests cannot get within 15 seconds of GM's time, the time difference is all that is needed to prove cheating, blah, blah.
BTW, the driver in that test is used to high-hp, high-torque, RWD cars. Some of his rides over the past couple of years.

 

Charlie - Monaro hasn't acknowledged any actual facts... I'd wait until he actually does that.

He still hasn't explained many questions that were asked of him.

He has no evidence, no facts, no proof of any of his positions.

 

Very reasonable and logical response as usual. I see where you are coming from now. I didnt pay that much attention to all the test numbers beyond the usual numbers. Should have known you would have gone over everything with a fine tooth comb Teh GTR is deffinately showing its accumen when you look at the whole numbers from this test. Very impressive car especially considering the cars its up against. No way to deny that unless someone has no appreciation for performance or sportscars in general. The g loads and avg mph speaks volumes of how much engineering and testing went into this car. Typical engineering couldnt produce these results on a car with these specs. I cant wait to see what the Spec V will really do. Imagine the GTR with an aero package or with 600hp or both.

Interesting that the ACR's gearing continues to hamper it on any fast track. The ACR package deffinately needs a bit of fine tuning to really optimize this pretty potent machine. It really needs its own gear set appart from the gas guzzler friendly 3:07 that all of em come with from there inception. It cant pull up top with that 5th and 6th gear set with the aero engaged. As nasty as the ACR is now it can clearly be improved upon and I hope Fiat gives SRT the budget it needs, unlike under Cerberus, to take it to the nth degree.

 

Very good point. This also kills those that want to attack Mero as "just" and engineer so his 7:26 time wasnt that good You have to respect the mfg's test drivers after seeing the GTR and ZR1 times by non factory accomplished drivers.