So are you saying it's only a 7:40's car?

But less than the 16 seconds disparity with the Turbo, C6 times, and CLK DTM AMG times. He was 12 seconds slower than Klaus Ludwig in the SLR, and 12 seconds slower than Motoharu Kurosawa in the NSX-R. What part of "quite close" (Sport Auto's own words!) do you not understand?
Are you deaf? Why would HvS be MUCH slower than those Porsche times? He ran the CGT on the 'Ring twice, and he has considerable experience in rear-engined Porsches. Don't deny that, you can't.
Like I said, go compare his 997.2 GT3 supertest video against Rohrl driving with a passenger during demo laps and passing cars: Rohlr is convincingly faster.


Some tests are taken more seriously than others...LOL. Is that the best you can come up with? That's weak, man. According to the supertest, which plenty of Porschephiles have been touting as the true, fair measure of a car, the LP560-4 IS a 7:52, a 997TT on MPSC IS a 7:54 car, and an SRT-10 IS an 8:13.
Through all of that senseless babbling, you have not provided a single technical reason as to why HvS was so far off the pace in the Turbo. Just gibberish about other cars that were not tested optimally (a possibility that can NEVER apply to his test in the GT-R, right? ex: VDC-R, oops!).


Have you personally driven the GT-R to its true limit? I would take Steve Millen's, Randy Pobst's, and Jethro Bovingdon's (Drivers Republic) words over yours anyday.
And if an AWD car on R-comp tires is so easy to drive at the limit, why would HvS be 16 seconds slower in exactly that kind of car, a car with a conservative timing by Porsche, a kind of car with which HvS is already very familiar?

Also, please clarify: Which two points are you talking about? I'm assuming this is the supertest you're referencing.

 

Not just the Viper, the Z06, TT, but also the Lambos (LP640, Murcielago, LP560-4), the SLR, the RS4, the NSX-R, etc, etc.
Maybe he nearly lost it a couple times in the Z06 because of technical deficiencies in the Z06. Ever consider that? It's not noted as the most confidence-inspiring car, you know...

Ok, you're right. He did lift for some reason on the straight a couple of times, not at the kink. Still, the fahrberichte noted a damp spot at Kesselchen. So did Nissan for the 7:38 lap, but their video shows another damp spot (Bergwerk) in addition to Kesselchen.


Suzuki has done THOUSANDS of laps at the 'Ring in the GT-R. HvS has done, at most, 10. Do the math, guy.
If HvS was so great, why did Chris Harris beat him in a Murcielago? And the guy who drove the NSX-R 11 seconds faster than HvS. Who was this GM driver that took the C6 to a time 16+ seconds faster than HvS? Do you really think he would have more track familiarity than HvS?

 

HeavyMonaro ran out of plausible excuses a LONG time ago. I tried to warn you guys not to keep arguing with them because they would never admit failure no matter how hard it stared them in the face. Yet you still continued and it has now been brought to this. After reading this heap of garbarge of an excuse, it should be clear to you that HeavyMonaro knows they've lost. Just leave it alone.







Sport auto takes some tests more seriously than others...

Just leave them alone, they will never conceed.

 

Again this example of the GTR cant seem to achieve Nissan's 290km/h and cant get close to the much hyped about legendary GTR handling. On a shorter track both Ferrari and Porsche was able to beat the GTR.

Ferrari Stradale

Porsche GT3

Nissan GTR

 

Havent you heard of the Nissan fanboi excuses of late? Porsche engines arent very well placed and make them harder to drive.

Oh back to your question, Walter Rohrl might be able to explain it a little bit better between the differences a little bit further. This is especially true for smaller engined cars with turbo's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IimssB9B8ds

Do you see the three Sport Auto tests I posted? Oh gee wiz that time doesnt come close to Nissan's time while the GT3 was able to match Porsche's time. Come on someone test this Nissan wonder pig against some proper competitions like the Enzo, Zonda and ACR on the long Nurburgring.

Show me the damp spots, any screen shots of it? Nissan has rain, damp sports, wet patches and dust excuses everytime they run the GTR. So show me screenshots, I wont take your word or Nissan's......I WANT VISUAL PROOF.

I can bet you that HvS has lapped the ring many more times and is more familiar with the track. Lol its funny how your trying to change the subject. Oh im just wondering how many times HvS drove the base Corvette around the Ring, was it twice like the GTR or only once? Because the first Sport Auto test for the GTR only netted them 7:50.

7:50 - 7:38 = 12 seconds difference between the first Sport Auto test and the second.

7:50 - 7:26 = 24 seconds difference between Nissan advertised and first SA time

 

Quote:

Have you personally driven the GT-R to its true limit? I would take Steve Millen's, Randy Pobst's, and Jethro Bovingdon's (Drivers Republic) words over yours anyday.
And if an AWD car on R-comp tires is so easy to drive at the limit, why would HvS be 16 seconds slower in exactly that kind of car, a car with a conservative timing by Porsche, a kind of car with which HvS is already very familiar?

Also, please clarify: Which two points are you talking about? I'm assuming this is the supertest you're referencing.

Jethro, Alain Prost, Steve Sutcliffe have all tested the GTR and GT2 back to back. They all do not think that the GTR can achieve Nissan's advertised time. Two of these journalists have been very well respected professional drivers. AP is regarded by many as one of the absolute best ever driver and makes the racing careers of both Pobst and Nissan paid Millen look rather pedestrian in comparison.

 

Jethro said that? Where?
Sutcliffe also claims Nissan cut corners in their video:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/anyth...s-corners.aspx
It's amazing he did not know that that was the standard method of timing at the 'Ring. He was co-author in the Autocar article where Harris beat HvS's time in the Murcielago by 7 seconds. Which raises the question: did Autocar time their lap over the full course? That would mean Harris was more like 10-11 seconds faster than HvS.
You keep mentioning Prost doubting the 'Ring time. Do you have any proof of this? Of all of the GT-R vs GT2/LP560/Scuderia tests, it's Prost's test that stands out as an outlier. Most head to head tests show the GT-R is much, much closer to those cars than that.

Compare Suzuki's time in the same section in the 7:38 video vs his time in the 7:29 video. He is over a second slower between Ex-Muehle and the exit of Bergwerk. Just listen to the audio in the 7:38 video. He clearly approaches that section with caution.
Dust...didn't you notice how how crossed-up he got at the end of Fuchsroehre leading into Adenaur-Forst in the 7:26 video? That was the exact same spot that the Land Motorsport Porsche crashed.

HvS has lapped the ring many more times and is more familiar with the track. So why was he 16+ seconds slower in the C6? Does the C6's handling differ a LOT from the C5? He has supertested 2 Corvettes on the Nurburgring before the C6. What is the special driving technique that allows the C6 to reach it's true maximum potential?
According to heavychevy, HvS drives at DE pace in the supertest. He is even likely even more lax in a preview drive. Meanwhile, Suzuki clearly approaches with 100%. That is enough to explain the time difference, aside from differences in conditions and tires. The important thing is the relative differences: HvS is slower than Suzuki both times by 12s. Contrary to your statements, he does not doubt the time set forth by Nissan, in either the fahrberichte or the supertest. He does not say Nissan are "optimistic" nor does he say they are cheating. He fully accepts the failing on his part, and that the difference is still "quite close." HvS accepts the 12s difference is quite close, monaro.

 

"What is clear is that it's easy to drive the GT-R quickly - but the same could be said of the 997 Turbo, or a Lamborghini LP560-4, neither of which are labelled 'uninvolving' or 'clinical'. That particular argument has been constructed by people with an axe to grind, normally a very expensive axe that's parked in their driveway and suddenly doesn't seem like such good value or quite as special as it once did. It certainly isn't an argument you'd care to make had you turned off the VDC-R and snuck up on the GT-R's absolute limits - because when the sticky 285-section Dunlop tyres do let go, it's just like any other car: it needs the driver to correct the slide. You'll be going bloody quick too, so you need to be accurate and decisive. The GT-R isn't snappy, but because it regains grip so quickly it can punish a lifted throttle and an overgenerous steering correction (the natural reaction to any oversteer at high speeds) just as viciously as any 911, any Ferrari or any Lamborghini.
...the ATTESA four-wheel drive system is rear biased and you can feel that philosophy now. Back off and it snaps back into line, keep your foot pinned and the angle builds, stabilises and the front tyres help pull you clear...which all sounds pretty easy, but because the GT-R is still driving forward hard the speed keeps building with the slide. Imagine an M3 in a similar situation - for a start it has less mechancal grip so the slide starts earlier, and as the wheels spin most of the power bleeds away and so your speed remains similar or even reduces. The GT-R starts the process at a higher speed and then continues to accelerate with almost the full force of 434 lb-ft. No wonder it requires a certain amount of brain recalibration and a lot of respect."
--Jethro Bovingdon, DriversRepublic

"A lot of people are misleading when they say about how easy it is to drive. And it is. It's very, very easy to drive. Up to about 80 or 90 percent. But if you really want to start pushing that car, it's going to start slipping and sliding and moving around. It's natural. Any car, be it a single seater or sedan, if you're really going quick, the car has to slide...you're moving the car around a lot. So [people] are secure in the GT-R, and you think you're going quick, but you can go a lot quicker."
--Steve Millen

"Both the GT-R and the 911 are specialist cars. They don't drive like anything else on the market. You just can't get into a GT2 never having driven one before and expect to go 10/10ths fast. It's a beast of a car and one that requires special skills and Porsche experience.
Whereas there's a seemingly universal belief that the GT-R is the opposite of that...it's apparently a PlayStation car, one that can go fast with any old muppet behind the wheel. Well, this is kind of true, all the way up to about 8/10ths of what he car can do. Drive over this, really push the car, and it all gets a bit difficult again. The Atessa system only punts power to the front wheels when it thinks you need it. To make the computer think you need it, you must deliberately throw the car with commitment and a little violence over the edges of its envelope. Only as the back wheels light up, or the front pushes desperately wide, will the car start to work its magic."
--Dale Lomas, chief instructor with Nurburgring driving school RSRNurburg

"The GT-R is violent when it breaks loose; the R8, in contrast, drifts sweetly. The 'R' mode really isn't a race mode-there's still a lot of stability control working, which is fine for the average guy but frustrating for me as a race driver. And before you turn stability control completely off, boy, you'd better have a lot of car-control clinics under your belt. The R8 is much more refined, a muscular dancer. The GT-R is a wrestler."
--Randy Pobst

"...On a better day, on the fastest tyre it’d no doubt run the GT2 pretty close.."
--Jethro Bovingdon

 

It's amazing how different things can sound when you don't make clarifications.

The first time HVS drove the GT-R around the Nurburgring it was NOT A SUPERTEST. He was invited by Nissan (along with some 30 other journos) to test drive the car on the Nordschleife and around the local roads.

The car was a right hand drive, pre-production, JDM GT-R and we now know that Sportauto did not even set up their timing gear for that test. The "7:50" lap time was actually an estimate made by HVS based on his test drive of a Bridgestone shod car in wet weather.

There was NO measured lap time during the GT-R's fahrberichte,as is the case with all pre-production cars tested by SA.

 

It's more than just style. There's a lot more invested in the actual ring number on Nissan's part.

Neither GM example really supports your case (see below) and even if Porsche is off base in regards to the Turbo's time, it's not as if the entire argument that Nissan's time is unrealistic rests on that single part of Porsche's claim.

Car and Driver and Motor Trend both did weather-corrected roller dyno test under less than ideal conditions. It's power to the wheels that matters. Don't know why you're insisting on an engine dyno as no-one outside of a tuner pulling the engine is going to do that. As for your power-to-weight list, you keep waving it around like you're the only one who understands the almighty anomoly of the GT-R. I never claimed power to weight ratio was the best predictor of ring times. You're confusing me with someone else.

LOL, try not to get your feet tangled up as you tap dance. I made reference to the GT2 and GT3 to point out that SA usually gets close to Roehrl's times. Porsche doesn't have a habit of making fantastic claims about their cars. And as far as the subject of Porsche announcing official times, I misread information of a Porsche forum. They didn't announce an time for the Carerra GT but apparently are doing it (obviously with far less fanfare than Nissan) for their newer cars. I was mistaken. As for accusing me of "deliberately lying" about that, you might want to consider your own "deliberate lying" about the tires Nissan used for Suzuki's 7:38 run.

Go for it Guibo. You seem to have nothing but spare time on your hands.

Try to understand that this one aberration doesn't somehow vindicate Nissan, even though you've convinced yourself a 12 second disparity is within reason. That said, Porsche probably did bungle their response to Nissan because they didn't provide much (anything) to back up the 7:38 claim for the Turbo. It's really hard to say why their number was so far from what SA got. If it turns out the 7:38 was unrepresentative of a true production model, it should be disregarded. But they also provided a reference time for a GT2 which was spot on so it's not like their accusation was completely off base. Same goes for their 7:40 claim for the new GT3 this last spring in which they reiterated their stance on the GT-R.

What does the R34 Skyline have to do with the R33's time? Did Nissan invest much of anything in the R34's ring "effort" for that matter?

How many attempts have been made to reproduce the Z06's time? Or the 911 Turbo's time? Or the C6's time? How many for the GT-R in comparison? As the C6 goes, the car GM used for that 7:59 time was a 2006 model driven by Jan Magnussen with suspension refinements. Also, SportAuto's car (listed as a January 2004 build) didn't even have the Z51 suspension to begin with. It used the F55 magnetic shock system which is *not* GM's track suspension. Please read post #58 in this thread for some enlightenment:

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showth...?t=5035&page=6

To summarize, GM (Dave Hill) were well aware the 2005 Corvette could not break the 8 minute barrier. The 7:59 time is the result of the ring testing and the improvements made to the suspension. And yes, I'm aware those changes aren't listed as "official" in the 2005 -> 2006 upgrade bullet list.

You tend to flitter from car to car and test to test so forgive me for not seeing where you were meandering off to on this latest tangent. Those Bridgestones still have a lot of grip, at least as much or more than the Z06's runflats. Furthermore, GM's 7:43 claim for the Z06 is slower than Nissan's claim for the GT-R so there is no real inconsistency here despite your wing flapping about it.

Those heavy runflats the GT-R is "burdened" with provide near Scuderia and GT2-like lateral grip, and those cars weigh much less. Also, I never claimed the 911 Turbo should be faster than the GT-R, just that that AMuS test wasn't exactly a fair fight.

GM's unnamed driver was Jan Magnusson and, again, your C6 example has been dismissed.

Oh yeah, I harbor such hatred for this inanimate hunk of sculpted steel and carbon fiber wearing a GT-R badge that I'm blind to its virtues. You guys need to evolve a bit beyond those stale, overly simplistic characterizations.

 

During the first test, what was HvS comment regarding the GTR?

 

LOL, says the guy who is going toe to toe with me on every post.

You covered a lot of stuff in that post, which we'll get into later. But let's start with the state of that C6 tested by Sport Auto...

How do you know it had the F55 magnetic shock system? It's not listed in the options list, is it?
Basic price: 61450 Euro
Luxury Package: 2750 Euro
DVD-Nav: 2250 Euro
Targa Top: 950 Euro
Special Paint: 950 Euro
Test Vehicle Price: 68350

Notice the center console of their test car:


It's missing the selectable settings of the F55 suspension, which you can see on this '05 Corvette:


Did you notice that the Sport Auto car had identical gear ratios to a Z51-equipped car?

It sounds to me like Sport Auto did test an F55-equipped car; that doesn't mean it was the same one in the supertest. Translation of the test:
"The weakness of the feather/spring/absorber system becomes particularly remarkable with the optional „F55 Magnetic Selective Ride control, which - like the Porsche system PASM - differentiates sport on push of a button between „route “and „“. It was on board the Coupés ordered for checking with more favorable climatic conditions."

Enlightenment? All I see is an unreferenced quote from somewhere else.
Check out this link. It says the 7:59 time has been listed for the C6 long before GM would be testing a 2006 model.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-c...rburgring.html

As someone who was helping update the sc.net database in real-time (since 2002-ish?), I can confirm that the 7:59 time has been on there for that long.

How is it not a fair fight? AMuS has been testing Porsche 911's since, like, forever. That Turbo not only has about a 200kg weight advantage, it also had ceramic brakes. LOL, now I see what you're saying. In order for it to be a "fair fight", the Porsche in question must have:
R-compound semi-slicks
ceramic brakes
-200kg
and maybe +100 hp?

 

Four days after the fact. Someone is clinging to this thread like a life preserver and it isn't me.

Of course. And the brakes. But almost all European Corvettes come standard with that. Your picture is a good catch. It does seem possible that SportAuto tested two differently equipped C6's but their text about the MRC system (The paragraph's bolded title translates to something like "The Corvette's suspension is too harsh") leads one to believe that was the car they supertested. I would have to translate the whole article to get a better context but you may be correct.

As far as the "internet list" being the authority about a 2005 C6 running the 7:59 time, that is not at all convincing unless you have proof of where the "internet list" got that original time. Show me a press release...something. Newer information (from Dave Hill) says that time was run on a 2006 model and it makes perfect sense that GM would be making improvements to the base model as they were doing ring testing for the Z06. It's quite common for GM to make "fixes" after the first year of a new platform release. Also note that that same internet list that quotes the 2005 time almost always mentions Dave Hill as being the driver, which is clearly wrong.

It should have somewhat equivalent tires. That's all I ever said. MPSCs. The rest is just nonsense. As far as the 200kg advantage you keep throwing around, should Porsche be penalized for designing lighter cars? You sure make it sound that way.

 

The whole article is online.
The way it reads, it sounds like they tested both types of cars: conventional dampers and magnetic dampers. Both cars, even the magnetic damper one, had these drawbacks. It does not say they supertested the MSRC car around the 'Ring. The fact that the supertest car does not list the option indicates your source is full of ****.

Dave Hill is on the list because someone passed the erroneous information to the guy who started that list. The timing is still correct, as verified by those Corvette forum members. The time has been on the list for a long, long time.
What were the revisions in the '06 over the '05 that would net a time difference of 16 seconds?

How are 200-treadwear runflat tires equivalent to 80-treadwear nonrunflat tires? They aren't.
No, Porsche should not be penalized and I'm not making it sound that way. Horrible inference. I'm saying the Turbo already has a significant advantage in weight. Do you agree with that statement?

 

That has absolutely ZERO relevance to what we're talking about: the times claimed by GM for the C6 and by Porsche for the Turbo fall short of what was independently verified.

Weather-correcting doesn't mean you have an accurate number for drivetrain losses. You're right, no one outside of a tuner pulling the engine is going to do that. All else is just guessing. There can be even a 10% difference between different types of dynos, BTW.


If you don't have power/wt, then what else are you basing your doubt on? The difference in times between Suzuki and HvS? We have already seen HvS being beaten repeatedly by other drivers. How do you explain the 11-second disparity in times between Rohrl in the CGT on different days?

Porsche claimed the CGT could hit 200 kph in 9.9 seconds. Has it ever?
Porsche doesn't have a habit of making fantastic claims, so therefore the Turbo time is absolutely correct. Ok...
IMO, Nissan made a mistake in reporting the tires as Dunlops. It's easy enough to do. Didn't you notice that
1) Rohrl was reported as having set a 7:29 in the GT2 as early as September, 2007
2) One year later, in casting doubt on Nissan's time, the Porsche program manager said they got the GT2's time down to 7:34.
Down to 7:34 from what? Rohrl had reported 7:29 a year earlier, and at the GT2's unveiling they were already going with a time 2 seconds faster than 7:34.
Are Porsche lying about the GT2's time(s)? Or is it perhaps a case of miscommunication?


Give me some technical reasons as to why SA would be that much slower than Porsche's engineer. Do you have any ideas?
If it was unrepresentative of a true production model, would you accuse them of cheating, and post in the Porsche forums the same way you are posting here?

Spot on? Rohrl went 4 seconds faster while passing 11 cars. Don't you think he could set a low 7:20's on a closed track, thousands of laps, and perfect conditions?
They said they lapped in traffic with the GT3. So of course, HvS, who has tested god knows how many Porsches, should get a similar time on a closed course. Do you deny that HvS is very familiar with Porsches? Even in the Scuderia, he was 6 seconds faster than Rohrl. A lot of that probably has to do with traffic.
Like I said, go watch the video of Rohrl giving demo laps in the GT3 with a passenger and traffic (passing even a Scuderia). He is faster than HvS's supertest video of the GT3.

The R34 Skyline is relevant because it would prove your case that Nissan has a history of lying and therefore should not be trusted, while Porsche doesn't. If Nissan reported a 7:45 time for the R34, wouldn't that be relevant to our discussion?
The fact that Nissan have been investing this much for the R35's ring "effort" makes their time more believable. If they just arrived at the 'Ring and knocked off a 7:26 in only 3 hours, that would not be believable. If the GT-R wasn't kicking the Turbo on other tracks, the time would be less believable.

None of those cars is as polarizing as the GT-R has been. So who cares to verify if a 356 hp/tonne Z06 can set that time? It's expected. And a lot of this testing has been prompted by Porsche claiming that Nissan lied: Porsche are as much responsible for this scrutiny as Nissan. Except it blew up in their faces, LOL.
So now you're saying the # of attempts affects how close to the mfr time the car will get? OK. Do note that Suzuki's best efforts came after thousands of laps while Magnussen knocked off that 7:43 (more like a 7:40-7:41 with a flying start) in only 4 laps. HvS, doing a similar # of laps, was 8-9 seconds slower. This doesn't mean that Nissan are lying. This just means that other companies can try harder, and if they don't, there's nothing to cry about.