2010 GTR loses launch control

[luckistryke]

you guys are great....hrs and hrs of entertainment. thanks for posting

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Which comes right back to the question, 'Why did Porsche get their GT2 around the ring 16 seconds quicker than DR did but only 2 seconds quicker than they did in the GTR?'

Case is most definitely not closed.

Those are not the same actual car is the obvious answer. The GT-Rs that have been tested, regardless of origin and location tested have shown variations attributable only to purposeful differences in tune. FACT.

This is one very possible, even likely I'd say, explanation as to the large variation in track times that have been seen. Porsche lying, not trying or not being familiar with the car is simply a much more extreme and remote possbility.

Just out of curiosity do you think Suzuki san could get close to any/all of Rorhl's times in various P cars at the ring? I sure do.

[footie]

I just don't buy it that such a huge variation in output is here in one car. And isn't funny that Porsche just happened to got the slowest of all GTRs, remember that the one used by DR wasn't a rocket, a normal 997s with DCT beat it in acceleration.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I just don't buy it that such a huge variation in output is here in one car. And isn't funny that Porsche just happened to got the slowest of all GTRs, remember that the one used by DR wasn't a rocket, a normal 997s with DCT beat it in acceleration.

What are you smoking? The GT-R from their GT2 comparison was not the same GT-R as the one from the 997 PDK comparison.

As far as that particular comparison the 997 PDK put in a great drag strip showing but the GT-R made up for that on the track with its great handling AND super sticky Dunlops (again good for roughly a half second a minute, right). As well I'd be willing to bet they did not use the warranty voiding LC in the GT-R!

On a mostly unrelated note is was funny how they were talking up the PDK dual clutch transmission so much and noting that it made so much difference with its shift times in the drag race. Perhaps they forgot that the GT-R also has a pretty advanced dual clutch transmission...

On the trap speed variation in the GT-R:

We've been through this before...I think the observed range for trap speeds is about 115->125 mph. A couple of lists have been posted here but I can't seem to locate one presently. Now certainly all of these test were not identical, controlled, under identical conditions, identical temperatures, identical methods, etc., etc. So you get natural variation, some systematic, some random. But using the very rough trap speed vs. hp conversion ("estimate" might be a better description):

hp = weight x (speed / 234)^3

We find the hp to range from 475 to 610. You have already told me that 50 hp is not a big deal, abnormal nor dishonest, but a 135 hp range. Come on.

Just for kicks the M3 results in our own very extensive database shows a 111->115 trap speed range this comes out at 406->450, a mere 44 hp, or about 11% of quoted. The GT-R is 28% of quoted.

This is called VARIATION.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

What are you smoking? The GT-R from their GT2 comparison was not the same GT-R as the one from the 997 PDK comparison.

As far as that particular comparison the 997 PDK put in a great drag strip showing but the GT-R made up for that on the track with its great handling AND super sticky Dunlops (again good for roughly a half second a minute, right). As well I'd be willing to bet they did not use the warranty voiding LC in the GT-R!

On a mostly unrelated note is was funny how they were talking up the PDK dual clutch transmission so much and noting that it made so much difference with its shift times in the drag race. Perhaps they forgot that the GT-R also has a pretty advanced dual clutch transmission...

The fact that the two cars being different is the point I was making, it's the similarity in the results. A slowish GTR at Silverstone (an equally high speed track) produced a lap time better than both the GT2 and Gallardo LP560 yet was 10mph slower on Hanger straight.

I didn't know that it had Dunlops on that occasion, where did this info come from? Either it actually backs up my position, that the GTR with Dunlops is quicker than a GTR.

The GTR at Silverstone had a tried clutch according to Chris but I don't know if LC wasn't used, though this is irrelevant to the lap time it did and the fact it was slower by 10mph compared to the GTR and LP560 proves it's output wasn't excessive.

Originally Posted by swamp2

On the trap speed variation in the GT-R:

We've been through this before...I think the observed range for trap speeds is about 115->125 mph. A couple of lists have been posted here but I can't seem to locate one presently. Now certainly all of these test were not identical, controlled, under identical conditions, identical temperatures, identical methods, etc., etc. So you get natural variation, some systematic, some random. But using the very rough trap speed vs. hp conversion ("estimate" might be a better description):

hp = weight x (speed / 234)^3

We find the hp to range from 475 to 610. You have already told me that 50 hp is not a big deal, abnormal nor dishonest, but a 135 hp range. Come on.

Just for kicks the M3 results in our own very extensive database shows a 111->115 trap speed range this comes out at 406->450, a mere 44 hp, or about 11% of quoted. The GT-R is 28% of quoted.

This is called VARIATION.

When you consider that most GTRs tested sit between the 118~120mph bracket I would reckon that the slow and quick one could be disregarded as you well know. Likewise most M3s sit between 112~113mph bracket so again the variation in output is equally small.

If you want to work the figures to your own ends then by all means be my guest but most people know that both cars are on average producing outputs with in the tolerances expected for manufacturing.

P.S.
BTW you are still not giving an answer to my question, I will repeat.

'Given that most tests conducted show the GT2 and GTR too be very close in track times regardless of the average speed of the tracks in question, do you still feel that Porsche and DR's times for both cars should be so varied?'

Please answer the question.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I didn't know that it had Dunlops on that occasion, where did this info come from? Either it actually backs up my position, that the GTR with Dunlops is quicker than a GTR.

I am only assuming Nissan's claims for the tires is correct. It was mentioned in the video comparison of the 997 PDK vs Jag vs R8 vs GT-R that the GT-R had the Dunlops.

Originally Posted by footie

The GTR at Silverstone had a tried clutch according to Chris but I don't know if LC wasn't used, though this is irrelevant to the lap time it did and the fact it was slower by 10mph compared to the GTR and LP560 proves it's output wasn't excessive.

It is not irrelevant. YOU brought up that his car was slow in the drag race but still faster at the track. You are now providing even more evidence to explain why it did not perform well in the drag.

Originally Posted by footie

When you consider that most GTRs tested sit between the 118~120mph bracket I would reckon that the slow and quick one could be disregarded as you well know. Likewise most M3s sit between 112~113mph bracket so again the variation in output is equally small.

So what you are saying is that statistical outliers can be disregarded in a data set? I agree completely. This is exactly what you have argued against in my regression and outlier analysis for the GT-R 7:29 lap time. Absollutely hilarious how you can choose a tactic to suit your goal and disregard the exact same tactic when it does not suit you. Just for the record, I generally agree with removing the most extreme outliers and seriously doubt Nissan shipped any GT-Rs with 600+ hp.

Originally Posted by footie

If you want to work the figures to your own ends then by all means be my guest but most people know that both cars are on average producing outputs with in the tolerances expected for manufacturing.

Yes, we have completely agreed to disagree on this in the past. In your opinion it is perfectly acceptable for a car rated at 480 hp to have +50 hp, i.e. 530 hp. Funny how the GT-R DID NOT GET SAE power certified isn't it?

Originally Posted by footie

P.S.
BTW you are still not giving an answer to my question, I will repeat.

'Given that most tests conducted show the GT2 and GTR too be very close in track times regardless of the average speed of the tracks in question, do you still feel that Porsche and DR's times for both cars should be so varied?'


Please answer the question.

I answered the question immediately in my first reply, again seem you can't or don't read. It is simple - they are different cars and had different outputs. As well there is plently of data showing times either obtained or estimated (or some combination) in the high 7:3X to high 7:4X range for the GT-R at the Ring. NO ONE OTHER THAN NISSAN HAS COME EVEN CLOSE TO 7:29. Until they do most folks with a shred of skepticism will continue to believe that car was producing minimally 530 hp. We don't really disagree!

You believe the following scenario is easily possible and I believe it is on the edge of possible but we both believe it:

• Stock GT-R
• +Tuned~530 hp
• +Dunlops (which are closer to race rubber than MPSC)
• +Perhaps some suspension "tweaking" (your statement, not mine)
• +Suzuki san
• +Perfect day
• +HUGE effort and expense by Nissan camping out at the Ring
• +Perfect lap
  ___________________
• =7:29

By the way, I am now (again...) done with this rehashing. Enjoy having the last word.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Funny how the GT-R DID NOT GET SAE power certified isn't it?

I am not at all surprised by this. You can disagree, call it cheating, but for what ever reason Nissan chose to give the GTR a comfortable 10% more power in the GTR than it quoted.

Originally Posted by swamp2

You believe the following scenario is easily possible and I believe it is on the edge of possible but we both believe it:[/B]

• Stock GT-R
• +Tuned~530 hp
• +Dunlops (which are closer to race rubber than MPSC)
• +Perhaps some suspension "tweaking" (your statement, not mine)
• +Suzuki san
• +Perfect day
• +HUGE effort and expense by Nissan camping out at the Ring
• +Perfect lap
  ___________________
• =7:29

By the way, I am now (again...) done with this rehashing. Enjoy having the last word.

With the two possible exceptions I totally agree with this list. The first is that the car was anything other than stock, when a representative tells you they all make 10% more than quoted that makes a 530hp GTR the norm, not the exception to the rule. Second is the rubber, these Dunlops are at the top end of the scale with r-compound rubber but they are not markedly better.

Two others on the list are very important to the time Nissan achieved in comparison to any other, one is Suzuki's knowledge of the car and his ability and the other is the huge effort placed on Suzuki to achieve the result needed at all costs.

The perfect day and lap simply made that time possible, as I said previously, god knows how many laps in the mid 7:3X it took to get that magical 7:29.

Next, everyone need to look over all the data so far compiled about the GTR vs others to see that with the possible exception been the Porsche car the GTR's performances have been pretty consistant with it's rivals, as was the same when DR tested to the two. On average the GTR is within a second of it main rivals and never ever a full 16~17s slower than the GT2.

[Splinter4784]

The Transmission cost $25,000 Dollars

and after 30 launch controls its usually destroyed

They have a lawsuit against them from some of the owners who were not aware of that LOL

and Nissan doesnt want to pay for it and completly wipe out there profit margin

[dkhm3]

Hey guys, you are all wrong.

I got 7:28 in the Ring with the GT-R in Grand Turismo 4 on the ps3...

looks like they weren't lying after all.

Chill.