I was going to dig these numbers up, right before I read them in your post.

According to EtherSpill, 12 secs proves cheating.

That means Porsche is cheating worse than Nissan, and GM is cheating even worse.

If one is true, then the others are as well, right?

 

I don't recall GM or Porsche launching an all out media blitz to advertise their ring times for their cars the way Nissan did. And please refrain from fabricating statements and then attributing them to me. You fanboys seem to have a habit of it.

 

It doesn't matter if it's a media blitz. The claim is the claim. GM didn't send a bunch of Z06's to Europe, and ace C6R driver Jan Magnussen just happened to be lounging around at the NRing on the same day, so that GM could keep the Z06's 'Ring prowess hush-hush? Puh-lease. Porsche peddled out their 7:38 Turbo 'Ring time for the expressed purpose of casting doubt on Nissan's claim, stating that their Turbo was 16 seconds faster. Lo and behold, after the supertest result with an experienced Porsche driver, and a same-day test in Auto Motor und Sport, it was found that the GT-R is not only the equal of the Turbo on the 'Ring, it was the one that was proven to be 16 seconds faster. And here you are, continuing to be an apologist for Porsche when they've been caught with their pants well and truly down. You shouldn't be throwing the term "fanboy" around.

Just answer the question: did GM and Porsche also cheat? (This is for you too, heavyMonaro.)

Sport Auto themselves say the time differential between what they got and Nissan's claim is "quite close." Give me a good reason why we should take your word over theirs.

 

Actually it does. It shows the difference in philosophy between the respective companies. Porsche is conservative and has a reputation for understatement. In general, they don't make outrageous performance claims. They've also shyed away from announcing "official" ring times for their cars since the Carrera GT.

The claim is made by the same company selling the car who has a vested interest in it's success. If you're gullible and naive enough to believe a manufacturer's claim should serve as the "benchmark", that's your business.

GM rented the track for one hour and Magnussen ran a time of 7:42.9. Sport Auto got a 7:49 for the Z06, by the way. Compare this effort to Nissan's. Nissan are on record as saying they ran thousands of laps before they cracked the 7:30 mark with the GT-R. So sorry, but that's another big "fail"your part.

911 Turbo was wearing *Pilot Sports* in that test where the GT-R had the far, far gripper Dunlops, but don't let that little factoid ruin your wet dream.

Porsche in all likelyhood sourced a GT-R with Bridgestones, so their claim is plausible.

I think the upcoming 997.2 turbo is going to be a hell of a car and anyone lucky enough to have the means to get one can probably thank Nissan for "motivating" them to raise the bar. Nissan targeted the 997 turbo and scored a direct hit. It's time for Porsche to answer back.

 

Both Nissan and GM are promoting the 'Ring times. You are arguing about degrees of difference. Doesn't matter.

When Nissan first released the 7:38 time, people like you were also saying it was outrageous: "No way a car that heavy with that power can lap in that time. It must have had 693bhp and racing slicks blah-blah-blah."
Tell me: does Sport Auto's GT-R time "make sense" given its power and weight?

Doesn't matter if it's Rohrl saying he set a certain time or if one of their program managers doing the same thing: these are still employees of Porsche. It's easy enough for Porsche to stipulate "Don't release 'Ring times" in their non-disclosure agreements.
If they are so conservative with their times, then why was HvS not able to match their time in the Turbo? After all, it's a conversative time. If the GT-R can match that time, why can't the 200kg-lighter Turbo?

And you are gullible and naive enough to believe that HvS always extracts the best out every single car he tests.


They had already rented the track for weeks, testing different suspension and tire combinations.
GM claimed 7:42.9 with a standing start. Sport Auto got 7:49 with a flying start. That's well over a 6-second difference.

Not really. Sport Auto's time in the Z06 is slower than their time in the GT-R. In fact, there is not a single test anywhere in the world where the Z06 has lapped faster than the GT-R, right? Even that slow-*** 12.6-second 1/4 mile GT-R in C&D on Bridgestones.

Far grippier, yet only account for 5 seconds on the 'Ring. The Turbo still lost. LOL, the fact that you are even bringing up tires when the Turbo has a 200kg advantage is quite indicative of your obvious bias.

If they were trying to replicate Nissan's time, shouldn't they have at least picked the same tires? If you believe that Porsche would have honestly given the GT-R a fair shake, then you're incredibly gullible and naive. Of the half dozen + head to head tests between these cars, Porsche's result is the one that sticks out as "suspicious." Until you realize they are trying to sell Turbos, after all, not GT-R's.
Apparently Nissan helped them optimize the car (you'd think new Dunlops are in order, right?), and they were no faster than before. From edmunds.com:
"Porsche's GT-R had something over 3,000 miles on the odometer. Its tires were in tatters. The brakes were terminally toasted. None of the fluids had been changed. Mizuno inquired whether the transmission had been recalibrated following the recommended 1,200-mile break-in procedure as specified in the owner's manual. It had not. Mizuno provided new tires and new brakes, changed the fluids and recalibrated the transmission. And then he carefully explained the driving techniques that are required to help the GT-R do its best (as a former race engineer in charge of Nissan's effort at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, he knows his stuff) and sent them on their way.
It seems Porsche was no more successful afterward, and now the testing season at the Nordschleife has concluded as winter weather approaches. Our Nissan sources tell us that the whole episode is highly humorous, especially as Porsche declines to describe its own testing protocol for Nordschleife laps."

Porsche also claim the Scuderia is 5 seconds slower than the Mk2 GT3, whereas HvS, a seasoned Porsche driver, found a slightly different result.

I think you have a problem answering very simple, direct questions. Clearly you are as biased as heavyChevyCountry.

 

Porsche hasn't officially promoted a 'Ring time since the CGT?
Watch @ 3:56

Notice how that time matches the time in this marketing material:


7:59 in the 599 GTB, WTF? That is not only slower than HvS by 12 seconds, it's 3 seconds slower than their own Panamera Turbo.
Panamera Turbo - (254 PS/tonne) - 7:56
599 (355 PS/tonne; +40%! ) - 7:59

 

LOL! One company is obviously making a much bigger deal about it than the other. Remind me again, which company issued a series of press releases to boast about their ring times? If you can't see this blatantly obvious contrast in styles, you're hopelessly blinded by bias.

You don't have the first clue what I was thinking or saying about the 7:38 time. Again, you're building up strawmen. Tell me: Is Nissan's "paper" power to weight ratio really meaningful when dyno tests show the car making more like 520 crank hp, even with paltry dyno fans?

Riiight. You are clueless as to the way things work in the real world.

One exception does not disprove the general trend. HvS has gotten extremely close in the GT2 and GT3. You're also conveniently ignoring Nissan's checkered past when it comes to the Skyline and claimed ring times.

I believe manufacturers' claimed performance metrics should be reproducible within reason by an independent party (Ya know, basic experimental theory) or they're only useful for fanboys like yourself to ooh and ahh over.

Two weeks and a 1 hour driving session vs. tweaking done over two years and thousands of laps of driving. Yeah, *real* comparable. Keep up the bad work.

Where on earth did you see me claiming the Z06 should be faster around a road course based on a quarter mile time advantage?

A the fact that you don't appreciate or understand the benefit of R compound tires vs. all seasons on a course like the ring is indicative of yours.

Oh yeah, Porsche's engineers are just a bunch of ham-fisted hacks incapable of driving an AWD car with a DCT transmission. I'm sure a "Nissan source" would never embellish a story like that in any way, shape or form. I'm guessing you also believe Mizuno when he states point blank that Nissan's launch control was never intended to improve acceleration and never promoted as a performance aid. It was strictly meant to "launch" your car out of a snowbank.

And I think you're not bright enough to realize that your premise (that the Z06 and 911 Turbo cases are analogous to Nissan's GT-R ring assault) is flawed.

 

One blurb in a sales video that's almost 2 years old. Oh, and a reported time that happens to be within a second of the time SportAuto got. Yeah, real damning evidence. Porsche is really making a giant stink about that GT2 alright.

 

There is a difference in style. That does not refute the fact that GM and Porsche reported these times. Isn't that the issue: Independent testing vs manufacturer times?

Which dyno test of the engine on an engine dyno proved this to be the case? If your talking about wheel dynos, was that a Dynojet or a Mustang Dyno or some other dyno? Different dynos have different loads associated with them, and they can be programmed anyway the operator feels like.
Let's use your 520 crank hp figure for a moment:
Ford GT (344 hp/tonne) - 7:52
Gallardo LP560 (353 hp/tonne) - 7:52
Porsche 997 Turbo (304 hp/tonne) - 7:54
CLK DTM AMG - (345 hp/tonne) - 7:57
SLR (626 PS; 358 PS/tonne) - 7:52
SL65 BS (356 PS/tonne) - 7:51
LP640 (355 PS/tonne) - 7:47
599 (355 PS/tonne) - 7:47
TechArt GT Street (399 PS/tonne) - 7:39
F430 Scuderia (364 PS/tonne) - 7:39
GT-R (292 PS/tonne) - 7:38
Ruf RT12 (413 PS/tonne) - 7:35

@ 520 crank hp, this thing is lapping between cars that have 25-41% higher power/wt. Does that make sense all of a sudden?

One exception can prove an instance of cheating. That's all we're talking about. When did I ever say Porsche lied about the GT2 and GT3? Nice strawman, strawman.
Of course HvS has gotten extremely close in the GT2 and GT3. Porsche, just as you said, are conservative. They tend to run their laps with traffic; Rohrl passed 11 cars on his way to a 7:29 in the GT2. HvS is no stranger to supertesting Porsches. Do you want me to rattle off the list again?
So that begs the question: WHY was he so much slower in the Turbo? Try to answer that.


Actually, I am not ignoring it. I have already addressed that in this forum within the past day. Do you know what they claimed for the R34 Skyline?

Was Porsche's claimed performance metric for the Turbo reproducible by an independent party?
Was GM's claimed performance metric for the Z06 and C6 reproducible by an independent party?

So HvS had about as much time supertesting the Z06 that Magnussen got. Yet he was well over 6 seconds slower, if you account for standing vs flying starts. At least with Suzuki having spent thousands of laps in the GT-R, and knowing it for sure very well, it stands to reason that the time difference between him and HvS should be greater.


Where on earth did you see me saying that you claimed that? I'm saying: even with one of the worst 1/4 mile times (compared to OTHER GT-R's, GOT IT??), that GT-R was still faster than the Z06 even on the Bridgestones. Perhaps I should be guessing English is not your first language.

Michelin Pilot Sports are classified as "Max Performance Summer" tire according to Tire Rack, and a "Summer Performance Tire...Designed as original equipment on premium ultra-high performance sports cars" according to Michelin.
The Turbo is only about 5-7 seconds faster with the Pilot Sport Cups, right? That would make it a 7:56 lap, at best. That's still 9 seconds slower than the GT-R. Throw some heavier runflats on the Turbo, shall we?

Whether GM or Porsche didn't try as hard is not the issue here, as it pertains to our discussion. What is important is the time differential: Z06 being 6+ seconds off pace, the Turbo being 16 seconds off pace, the C6 being 16+ seconds off pace.
The fact that GM and Porsche did not try as hard underscores how suspicious their times are: in only 1 hour of lapping, Magnussen is somehow over 6 seconds faster than HvS? GM's unnamed engineer is over 16 seconds faster than HvS in the C6? Porsche reports times conservatively, yet HvS can't come within 16 seconds of Porsche's time? At least with Nissan taking it much, much more seriously ("Time Attack"), it makes more sense to believe the 12-second time difference. But of course, you're so full of the haterade, you can't see past your bias. That's why you won't answer such a simple question. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

LOL, way to blow things out of proportion (again). You said Porsche hasn't officially released a 'Ring time since the CGT. That was false. Were you deliberately trying to lie?

Rohrl set a 7:29 while lapping 11 cars. HvS did not get within a second of that on a closed course. If you really think HvS is as fast as Rohrl in a Porsche, go watch the Mk2 GT3 video in the supertest. Rohrl is faster than HvS even with a passenger during a demo ride and passing cars that clearly slow him down. You'd have to be an idiot to think Rohrl could never do better than a 7:29 in a GT2.

One blurb in sales video that was broadcast in front of an audience at a major international auto show...


Also, do you believe Porsche when they claim the Panamera Turbo is faster than a Ferrari 599?
Panamera Turbo - (254 PS/tonne) - 7:56
599 (355 PS/tonne; +40%! ) - 7:59

 

12 seconds does not prove cheating. But considering the only tests within 20 seconds for Nissan are non production Vehicles, it's not exactly comparing apples to apples now is it? We know for a fact no one else has driven the half J-spec, Half US-spec GT-R that Horst drove the first time.

Seeing that Horst was 12 seconds slower on a practice lap than Suzuki on a flyer, yet still 12 seconds slower on a flyer is even more fishy. And how does Horst reach near the same speeds on the back straight yet be 1 second slower from two points that negate exit speed? I said before this is where the overboost in the Spec-V came from. Top speed does not tell the whole story. Let's see overlays of the accel graphs from the three cars and see which is steeper, that will tell the whole story, not top speeds at a random spot on the track.

 

That statement is false if you want to compare like-for-like tests, but anyway, how does the supertest car differ from production vehicles? It sounds to me like you and monaro were saying "Wait for the supertest" to once again prove that the GT-R is a 7:50's car, and now that the result is out (and your hopes were crushed), you are trying to poke holes in the testing method which, before, you and everyone else was saying would be a fair representation of what a production GT-R would do.

Not really fishy. You don't know if the conditions were the same for the supertest vs Suzuki's fastest time. We know that during the 7:38 lap, Suzuki lifted at the Antoniusbuche kink; in subsequent tests, he did not. Per your own words, conditions matter, as does driver familiarity with the car. Do you think that between the fahrberichte and the supertest, Suzuki and HvS did the same # of laps in the GT-R?

Could you clarify that? Which two points are you talking about? I'm assuming this is the supertest you're referencing.

heavy, throughout all of the numerous threads in this forum and pages of this very thread, I have yet to hear your explanation as for how HvS could not get within 16 seconds of "unnamed Porsche engineer" in the Turbo. Why was HvS so much slower than this mysterious development engineer?

 

i really hate the way some people are so biased they refuse to see the qualities of both sides. Most of you here stand absolutely NO chance of ever driving on the ring at the limit, and if you do, you'll be so proud to run anything around 8 minutes, because in the end, you are not that damn good. who the hell cares about 5 seconds posted by professionals?

I own a carrera 4, i used to have a 300zx tt, i love the gtr and smile everytime i see one on the street. Who the hell cares what a bunch of engineers say about their cars? what matters is how you feel behind the wheel, and thats IT!

If you are gonna bicker about a few seconds on a track you stand no chance of duplicating, you really are buying a car like this for "compensating" purposes and should be ashamed of yourself. Look at me, i have the "biggest" car out now...

grow up. all of you.

 

I've never thought the GT-R in full trim (dunlops, good conditions etc.) was a 7:50's car. Don't put words in my mouth. We do know that the GT-R's time is still 12 seconds off the pace. Greater than both GT3's (997.1, 997.2), GT2, Z06,M3, M6 CGT, and Zonda F. What we can also gather from the Supertest is that some tests are taken more seriously than others. An LP-560-4 is not a 7:52 car, neither is a 997 TT on MPSC a 7:54 car, neither is a SRT-10 a 8:13 or whatever they have for it. I don't beleive a F430 is a 7:50's car either.

So your trying to throw out random lap times to alleviate that fact that the GT-R has the biggest deficit among cars that have been obviously taken seriously is a waste of time.

Since you don't do any driving let me educate you on something, an AWD car in R-comp type tires is not hard to drive at the limit, in fact it's the easiest out of anything else on that list. So for the car to have the largest gap while also being the easiest to get near the limit doesn't make much sense at all.

 

Guibo does like twisting things and putting words in other peoples mouths.

I also do not believe the F430 as a slow car its definately on par if not even faster than the GTR. Its clear that Sport Auto takes some tests more seriously and has many more laps on some cars. The Viper, ZO6, TT are some of the cars they didnt test well enough. On the corvette test you can even see HvS nearly loose it a couple of times, dramatically slowing his time.

Nissan GT-R
Hockenheim Hockenheim
1.10,7 min
Nordschleife North Loop
7:38 min

Porsche 911GT3
Hockenheim Hockenheim
1.10,4 min
Nordschleife North Loop
7:40 min

Ferrari 430 Scuderia
Hockenheim Hockenheim
1.10,3 min
Nordschleife North Loop
7:39 min

How do you know he lifted? Show me some graphs.

Driving a GTR Suzuki would have driven far more, driving around the Nurburgring and track familiarity then the advantage goes to HHvS, Suzuki would be like an amature compared to HvS. As previously explained by heavy, the GT is a far easier car to drive so im sure that HvS didnt have any trouble driving it around.