GT-R MASSIVELY under-rated

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

You do realize that this single dyno result is not official therefore it is not a valid proof. This whole thread is base on a speculation and again with no surprise you're making a conclusion out of it. Just like you did on the ISF thread and guess what happened there, you where wrong. Now we can do this, . But don't worry, when it becomes official you can do these silly smiley stuff again, in the mean time, hold off on it. Okay, good boy.

No dyno result is ever "official" (even factory ones because they do under-rate) they vary a great deal in results and much like performance simulation they can be "tuned" to get about any result you want. The striking thing about this evidence if the sheer size of the result. It points to, even accounting for a potential large over-read by the dyno and the tire loss (since if was a hub dyno), a significant over-rating. We are not talking about 10-20 hp here! At what point can the results convince you, the strict, no nonsense, 100% by the books guy you are: 480, 490, 500, 530, 550 wheel hp, where do YOU draw the line for a car quoted at 473 crank hp?

Let's leave the IS-F stuff in the IS-F thread, certainly not for avoidance just for purely keeping organized and OT. But since you must continue on that point there is one single "unofficial" dyno for the IS-F as well so that leaves you in a 100% contradictory position . The dyno results prove you are right and I am wrong about a small potential under-rating of the IS-F but it can not be evidence for my case with the GT-R? Get with it, you need some serious lessons on CONSISTENCY and EVIDENCE (as usual). And as much as you want to call it "case closed" on the IS-F my and Bruces simulations both point to a potential under-rating, the car is simply too fast for its power to weight ratio. That issue is far from settled. At least I have a level of reasonableness to call it like it is, there is some evidence, the case is not closed, simple. It is exaclty the same with the IS-F and GT-R. You "calling" it any other way is incorrect, premature and lacking simple common sense.

I really have a hard time seeing your general objection to the fact that manufacturers both under-rate and over-rate regularly. Hp is one of the most important car specs and selling points (if not the most important). Why is it so unfathomable to you that the marketing folks would over rule the engineering folks and under or over rate?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Would the 997T be possible without the enormous undertaking of the 959 in the 80's? No. Could the 911 have even survived through the 90's without the technologies of the 959? Doubtful. Is Porsche rich enough today that they bought a stake in their former parent company? Yes.

The profitability of Halo cars, like factory racing efforts, can not be judged by the P&L of the product itself.

Absolutely agree. The fact that Nissan may loose money on the GT-R is not at all a bad thing, probably a good thing long term for them and for us as consumers!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

http://www.gtrblog.com/index.php?blo...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


Tsukuba Circuit Lap Time
Nismo Skyline GT-R (R34) Z Tune 1 min 01.150 secs
Nissan GT-R (Stock) 1 min 1:931 secs
Ferrari 360 Challenge Stra' 1 min 02.440 secs

...

What am I missing can you spell it out in gory detail for me (and probably for others). What does this mean and what are the relevant baselines, etc. The time does not look to stick out as a sore thumb, slightly faster than a F360, heck I would guess way faster.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by swamp2

What am I missing can you spell it out in gory detail for me (and probably for others). What does this mean and what are the relevant baselines, etc. The time does not look to stick out as a sore thumb, slightly faster than a F360, heck I would guess way faster.

Those are official best lap times for street legal cars at Tsukuba race track in Japan.

Here's the wiki for the track, it's quite famous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsukuba_Circuit

What this means is the GT-R is much faster than the McLaren F1, 997T, Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale..the stripped out racing version of the F360 with the F1 gearbox when the laps are run on a smaller track more typical of backroads and small US racing circuits then the Nordschleife.

For instance in terms of my professional experience, my GSXR600 race bike was capable of race times only 1 second off that of the GSXR1000 at my home track, GIR which is a small track with a premium on handling and braking, despite being virtually the same bike with 40% less HP. At Road America, however, a long fast track, the 600 would be 10 seconds or more down to the 1000 despite the track being only 3x as long.

To find a vehicle that excels in both types of venue is very special and requires the total package.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No dyno result is ever "official" (even facotry ones because they do under-rate) they vary a great deal in results and much like performance simulation they can be "tuned" to get about any result you want. The striking thing about this evidence if the sheer size of the result. It points to, even accounting for a potential large over-read by the dyno and the tire loss (since if was a hub dyno), a significant over-rating. We are not talking about 10-20 hp here! At what point can the results convince you, the strict, no nonsense, 100% by the books guy you are: 480, 490, 500, 530, 550 wheel hp, where do YOU draw the line for a car quoted at 473 crank hp?

Let's leave the IS-F stuff in the IS-F thread, certainly not for avoidance just for purely keeping organized and OT. But since you must continue on that point there is one single "unofficial" dyno for the IS-F as well so that leaves you in a 100% contradictory position . The dyno results prove you are right and I am wrong about a small potential under-rating of the IS-F but it can not be evidence for my case with the GT-R? Get with it, you need some serious lessons on CONSISTENCY and EVIDENCE (as usual). And as much as you want to call it "case closed" on the IS-F my and Bruces simulations both point to a potential under-rating, the car is simply too fast for its power to weight ratio. That issue is far from settled. At least I have a level of reasonableness to call it like it is, there is some evidence, the case is not closed, simply. It is exaclty the same with the IS-F and GT-R. You "calling" it any other way is incorrect, premature and lacking simple common sense.

I really have a hard time seeing your general objection to the fact that manufacturers both under-rate and over-rate regularly. Hp is one of the most important car specs and selling points (if not the most important). Why is it so unfathomable to you that the marketing folks would over rule the engineering folks and under or over rate?

I'm glad you brought up the ISF dyno test. I never claimed that it was a solid proof or it's the final conclusion, first of all. What's amazing is that you did not jump on that and support it, as a matter of fact you completely disregard it and did not believe it at all base on your wrong simulation, while with this GTR dyno test, you're all over it and pretty much making a conclusion out of it. Why is that? You of all people should never question anyone about common sense, please don't make me laugh, oh wait you do that all the time already. Carry on.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Those are official best lap times for street legal cars at Tsukuba race track in Japan.

Here's the wiki for the track, it's quite famous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsukuba_Circuit

What this means is the GT-R is much faster than the McLaren F1, 997T, Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale..the stripped out racing version of the F360 with the F1 gearbox when the laps are run on a smaller track more typical of backroads and small US racing circuits then the Nordschleife.

For instance in terms of my professional experience, my GSXR600 race bike was capable of race times only 1 second off that of the GSXR1000 at my home track, GIR which is a small track with a premium on handling and braking, despite being virtually the same bike with 40% less HP. At Road America, however, a long fast track, the 600 would be 10 seconds or more down to the 1000 despite the track being only 3x as long.

To find a vehicle that excels in both types of venue is very special and requires the total package.

OK got it. What you are saying is not that this evidence can or can not be used to argue about the vehicles power or under-rating, it more shows evidence of the cars great chassis, suspension and road holding capabilities on this small/tight track?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

I'm glad you brought up the ISF dyno test. I never claimed that it was a solid proof or it's the final conclusion, first of all. What's amazing is that you did not jump on that and support it, as a matter of fact you completely disregard it and did not believe it at all base on your wrong simulation, while with this GTR dyno test, you're all over it and pretty much making a conclusion out of it. Why is that? You of all people should never question anyone about common sense, please don't make me laugh, oh wait you do that all the time already. Carry on.

Get real you little pest. Your reputation here sucks. Common sense, reasonable estimates as well as skepticism are my calling cards here. What do you have to stand on? You just finished saying "you where[sic] WRONG" about the IS-F. How the he## can you conclude I am wrong in my statement that a mild under-rating of the IS-F is possible if you do not take the dyno results you posted as 100% accurate and 100% certain (as well that requires a 100% accurate and certain knowledge of the cars drivetrain loss, which of course I know you have ...). You can't have it both ways and if you read my arguments/opinions/conclusions you will see I am not trying to have it both ways either. However, since you typically don't/can't read it does not surprise me that you can not pick up the details of my conculsions and statements, which are important. The devil is in the details as they rightly say. I did not really comment much about the IS-F dyno results then because it was close enough given the uncertainty in the drivetrain loss that is was not particulary strong evidence EITHER WAY for an honest or under-rated hp spec. You clearly believed in that thread that this dyno "fact" sealed the deal that you were right, the car is not under-rated and I was wrong. You are so confused, you can not even follow your own twisted logic. But that is what happens when your logic and arguments stink; it is like lying - it get very hard to keep track of them all in any consistent fashion.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OK got it. What you are saying is not that this evidence can or can not be used to argue about the vehicles power or under-rating, it more shows evidence of the cars great chassis, suspension and road holding capabilities on this small/tight track?

Yes, that's all.

Some heavy, high HP cars like the M6 don't do very well at either, but show much more competitive times at Nordscheife than for instance Car and Driver's VIR one-lap.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Get real you little pest. Your reputation here sucks. Common sense, reasonable estimates as well as skepticism are my calling cards here. What do you have to stand on? You just finished saying "you where[sic] WRONG" about the IS-F. How the he## can you conclude I am wrong in my statement that a mild under-rating of the IS-F is possible if you do not take the dyno results you posted as 100% accurate and 100% certain (as well that requires a 100% accurate and certain knowledge of the cars drivetrain loss, which of course I know you have ...). You can't have it both ways and if you read my arguments/opinions/conclusions you will see I am not trying to have it both ways either. However, since you typically don't/can't read it does not surprise me that you can not pick up the details of my conculsions and statements, which are important. The devil is in the details as they rightly say. I did not really comment much about the IS-F dyno results then because it was close enough given the uncertainty in the drivetrain loss that is was not particulary strong evidence EITHER WAY for an honest or under-rated hp spec. You clearly believed in that thread that this dyno "fact" sealed the deal that you were right, the car is not under-rated and I was wrong. You are so confused, you can not even follow your own twisted logic. But that is what happens when your logic and arguments stink; it is like lying - it get very hard to keep track of them all in any consistent fashion.

Wow! Little pest, man you're getting ballsy. First of all, i don't have any reputation here at all nor do i care. Your calling card on the other hand is you're always right and everyone else is wrong, there happy now. So you did'nt think that the ISF dyno was a strong evidence yet you think that the GTR's dyno is a strong one? And yes i believed the dyno test by Automobilemag base on their performance test as well that where pretty close compare to the C&D performance test. You want to talk about common sense, how can you possibly make any sense that your simulation of the ISF that you adamantly defend was so accurate at the time of 0-60 of 5.1 when the regular IS does the same. Yeah that's Swamp's common sense. Go to your corner and take a time out.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Wow! Little pest, man you're getting ballsy. First of all, i don't have any reputation here at all nor do i care. Your calling card on the other hand is you're always right and everyone else is wrong, there happy now. So you did'nt think that the ISF dyno was a strong evidence yet you think that the GTR's dyno is a strong one? And yes i believed the dyno test by Automobilemag base on their performance test as well that where pretty close compare to the C&D performance test. You want to talk about common sense, how can you possibly make any sense that your simulation of the ISF that you adamantly defend was so accurate at the time of 0-60 of 5.1 when the regular IS does the same. Yeah that's Swamp's common sense. Go to your corner and take a time out.

I'm elevating your brash and insulting behaviors in perfect lock step. Yes there you go again in typical fashion, take an early/preliminary result with a known input of the final drive grossly in error and call that my "result" for the IS-F. How many freaking times do I have to remind you about the final drive error, you are so unbelieveably dense. I must ahve stated, summarized, admitted, explained and accounted for this about 300 times already. You are hopeless. Error on simulation inputs = error on outputs, be it hp or wheel size of final drive - they all have a similarly large effect (I know you don't quite comprehend this yet but keep working on it). My results for the IS-F 0-60 using simulation are bracketed between 4.3 and 4.5 s, period. You simply can not read, pay attention nor follow a thread for more than one post at at time can you? I am not going to continue to argue the dynos with you, IS-F nor GT-R, I will let each of our words about those stand and it will be abundantly clear to all as to whom is reasonable and correct and who isn't. Again I am now officially done with IS-F topics on this thread and debating with you in general on this thread. I will wait patiently for my next chance to prove you wrong or at least seriously deficient in reading and basic comprehension skills. Head over here at your next earliest convenience.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'm elevating your brash and insulting behaviors in perfect lock step. Yes there you go again in typical fashion, take an early/preliminary result with a known input of the final drive grossly in error and call that my "result" for the IS-F. How many freaking times do I have to remind you about the final drive error, you are so unbelieveably dense. I must ahve stated, summarized, admitted, explained and accounted for this about 300 times already. You are hopeless. Error on simulation inputs = error on outputs, be it hp or wheel size of final drive - they all have a similarly large effect (I know you don't quite comprehend this yet but keep working on it). My results for the IS-F 0-60 using simulation are bracketed between 4.3 and 4.5 s, period. You simply can not read, pay attention nor follow a thread for more than one post at at time can you? I am not going to continue to argue the dynos with you, IS-F nor GT-R, I will let each of our words about those stand and it will be abundantly clear to all as to whom is reasonable and correct and who isn't. Again I am now officially done with IS-F topics on this thread and debating with you in general on this thread. I will wait patiently for my next chance to prove you wrong or at least seriously deficient in reading and basic comprehension skills. Head over here at your next earliest convenience.

LOL! Swamp, you really are a moron. I know about the corrected time, that's why i keep saying you where wrong in the begining. My point is, if you would've used common sense you should've realized that your original data was wrong. You're right though, i'll end this ISF topic as well, we've gone way off topic already. The ADD joke was a good one.

[sdiver68]

Suzkuka of course is a GP FIA - F1 track:

Nissan R35 GTR Stock 2:22.80

Comparison times:

1. Ferrari F40 2:25.26 Best Motoring
2. Ferrari F50 2:26.52 Best Motoring
3. Porsche Carrera GT 2:28.42 "Best Motoring"
4. Porsche 993 GT2 2:29.148 "Best Motoring"
5. Porsche 993 Turbo (3.6) 2:31.165 Best Motoring
6. Honda NSX 3.2 2:32.54min best motoring
7. Lamborghini Diablo 2:32.98 Best Motoring
8. Porsche 996 GT3 2:32.988 Best Motoring
9. Ferrari F355 2:33.25 Best Motoring
10. Honda NSX-R (3.0) 2:34.19 best motoring
11. Honda Civic Type-R JDM (FD2) 2:35.20 Tsuchiya
12. Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 2:36.263 "Best Motoring"
13. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VI 2:36.50 best motoring

http://kultivate.wordpress.com/2007/...ime-on-suzuka/

This one makes you you go, WTH?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No attacking Bruce. You are simply wishy washy to the absolute limit on this topic and it is 100% apparent from you posts. First you say there is absolutely no evidence for an under-rating then you admit the car may be under-rated and are willing to discuss the evidence. Which the hell is it and if the former why all the discussion?...

Wrong again. A cursory re-read of the string would show that this simply isn't so. Aside from a small disagreement about what is evidence and what really isn't, I've been repeating (over and over and over, ad nauseum) that the jury is still out on the GT-R as far as actual vs rated power.

In fact, I took that tack mainly to see if I could get you to move even the slightest on a previously stated position. What I really think is that the GT-R is a Porsche Turbo without the penalty of having the engine positioned in a different zip code. However, there was a zero point zero percent chance you would ever move toward that kind of stated position, hence my attempt at something more attainable from you.

Now, after approximately fourteen billion posts on the topic with you being dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, you post the following (in another string, yet!):

Originally Posted by swamp2

...It sounds like the launch control and DCT together are contributing to the cars fantastic peformance numbers. LC+AWD seems like the keys that are really getting it off the line so quickly. 3.3 s

...These pieces of evidence do support the argument (contrary to much of my previous thoughts) that the car may not be under-rated in power. I'd say the jury is still out, but again this is good evidence pointing to a legit power rating.

...I'm definitely going to run some more simulations to see if I can improve the traction or other transmission parameters to get anywhere close to these times with CarTest. Should be interesting.

Now of course we know that launch control will have essentially zero effect on trap speeds (and DCT has obviously been a given), but this gives you an opportunity to weasel away from an untenable position while still possibly retaining some level of dignity.

My question might be "What the hell took you so long?", but I already know the answer.

Swamp, you are a giant pain in the ass (and as a card-carrying Charter Member of PITA International, I speak with authority), but you are also my favorite pain in the ass.

You're intelligent, smart, articulate and passionate, and a very strong contributor in these and other topics.

In short, Swamp, you are the real thing. What my military son would call a "thirty pound head". He's an intelligent man himself (and didn't get where he is by being a dummy), but says he likes to "sit in the back with the other ten pounders".

The problem is, you have doubts where none are justified, hence the almost instant attack mode when disagreements arise. There's also the fact that, as with many other folks in a position where they've established something of a reputation, you end up spending a bunch of your time and energy defending instead of using what got you that reputation in the first place.

Folks may think your ego is too big, but my contention is that it's not big enough - and it's way too fragile. Speaking of which, the most remarkable thing I've noticed about fighter pilots in general (mostly Navy, but also Air Force when I've watched them congregate after joint "practice" missions), is that their egos are so damned big that they are completely invisible - and pretty much impregnable. They basically feel that they don't need to prove a thing against anybody but another fighter pilot.

Swamp, when your inner confidence level matches your capabilities, you'll be a better contributor. We are who we are, but we can all be better.

In this recent situation, can you see that you risk more credibility by defending like this, rather than early on saying you may have drawn an incorrect conclusion?

Bruce

PS - Yeah, I know you'll essentially read this as an attack and respond accordingly, but remember this post in the future.

[footie]

Bruce,

I take it you have read the times that the GTR has achieved with Edmunds, 0-60mph in 3.3s and a 1/4mile in 11.6s @120mph are both times which surely aren't common place with cars that have 480ps and weigh over 3800lbs.

I don't know anything like the amount both you and swamp do but I have had some experience with the TVR Cerbera 4.2v8 and it was a car which seemed to hit above it's weight compared to other compatible machines but it's achievement in this don't even come close to matching the GTR in respect to this.

P.S.

The times it has been producing around the Suzkuka track in many ways is even more incredible than it's acceleration as the list of cars it's quicker than are more track based than even it's meant for.

Either this is a case of Japanese propaganda at it's extreme or dare I say it again, one of the most advanced and complete cars currently available.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Wrong again. A cursory re-read of the string would show that this simply isn't so. Aside from a small disagreement about what is evidence and what really isn't, I've been repeating (over and over and over, ad nauseum) that the jury is still out on the GT-R as far as actual vs rated power.

In fact, I took that tack mainly to see if I could get you to move even the slightest on a previously stated position. What I really think is that the GT-R is a Porsche Turbo without the penalty of having the engine positioned in a different zip code. However, there was a zero point zero percent chance you would ever move toward that kind of stated position, hence my attempt at something more attainable from you.

Now, after approximately fourteen billion posts on the topic with you being dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, you post the following (in another string, yet!):



Now of course we know that launch control will have essentially zero effect on trap speeds (and DCT has obviously been a given), but this gives you an opportunity to weasel away from an untenable position while still possibly retaining some level of dignity.

My question might be "What the hell took you so long?", but I already know the answer.

Swamp, you are a giant pain in the ass (and as a card-carrying Charter Member of PITA International, I speak with authority), but you are also my favorite pain in the ass.

You're intelligent, smart, articulate and passionate, and a very strong contributor in these and other topics.

In short, Swamp, you are the real thing. What my military son would call a "thirty pound head". He's an intelligent man himself (and didn't get where he is by being a dummy), but says he likes to "sit in the back with the other ten pounders".

The problem is, you have doubts where none are justified, hence the almost instant attack mode when disagreements arise. There's also the fact that, as with many other folks in a position where they've established something of a reputation, you end up spending a bunch of your time and energy defending instead of using what got you that reputation in the first place.

Folks may think your ego is too big, but my contention is that it's not big enough - and it's way too fragile. Speaking of which, the most remarkable thing I've noticed about fighter pilots in general (mostly Navy, but also Air Force when I've watched them congregate after joint "practice" missions), is that their egos are so damned big that they are completely invisible - and pretty much impregnable. They basically feel that they don't need to prove a thing against anybody but another fighter pilot.

Swamp, when your inner confidence level matches your capabilities, you'll be a better contributor. We are who we are, but we can all be better.

In this recent situation, can you see that you risk more credibility by defending like this, rather than early on saying you may have drawn an incorrect conclusion?

Bruce

PS - Yeah, I know you'll essentially read this as an attack and respond accordingly, but remember this post in the future.

Bruce, how could I read such enormous compliments as an attack? You are far too kind. However, I'll certainly grant you membership in the PITA club as well . Stubborness is often a very good thing! With those things being said let's indeed stick to the topic at hand.

I have already admitted that the title of this thread and the evidence for it was a bit premature. I said that long before we had the Edmunds test results. Indeed there is evidence, from multiple sources for an under-rating, but I guess we both do agree that the jury is out, period.

I have done a lot more work in simulating the 997TT (yesterday in fact before your post above) and have good results there. First here are is a collection of magazine times I have found, it is not complete yet (it is tough to find all of this stuff online). It is interesting to notice the variation even in times reported by a single magazine for different tests and consequently likely different cars and even different models years and all of the other differences you can imagine that matter to performance (a point I have spent a lot of time dwelling on):

......../C&D/R&T/MT/
0-60:./3.3-3.8/ /3.2
0-100:/8.3-9.2/9.5/ /
1/4:.../11.6-12.2/12.3/11.4/
trap:../118.3/ /120.5/
top:.../193/ / /

Comments: The MT (Motortrend) results are for the tiptronic tranny and wow, they are impressive. However not only because it is a more complex transmission but also because the results seem to be outliers, thus I have stuck to simulating and discussing the 6MT for now. My simulation results are:

0-60: 3.7
0-100: 8.9
1/4: 12.1
trap: 114.5
top: 191

So here again, other than trap speed, my results are right in the range of what mags have obtained. However, to get to the best end of what the magazines have found, I need to bump the cars hp/tq to about 540/490. With these figures I obtain :

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 8.0
1/4: 11.6
trap: 119.8
top: 196

Pretty much in line with the best test results. The lesson here is that just the same way is take a tremendous power increase to increase the top speed even modestly, a similar thing occurs with all of the other metrics as well. You don't get a real appreciable bang for the buck. So I do find reasonable evidence that the 997TT is under-rated as well. Back to the the GT-R my predictions for it with quoted power and tq are:

0-60: 3.6
0-100: 8.8
1/4: 12.0
trap: 115.6
top: 191

So indeed very close to the sims for the 997TT with its stated hp and tq. Bumping the GT-R to 525 hp and 470 ft lb gives:

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 8.0
1/4: 11.6
trap: 119.4
top: 201

Which is pretty much in line with the fantastic results from Edmunds. Again a little shy on the trap but this seems to be the norm with CarTest. What else do we learn? Despite the GT-Rs weight disadvantage the lightning fast shifts do make a big difference. Either way you slice it I do agree that the GT-R and 997TT both on their reported specs and actual performance are quite similar. Still the pieces of evidence above as well as teh dynos do still point to an under-rating in both cars.

I don't have anything to hide from nor weasel away from here and I can easily accept being wrong. If you recall it is more important to me to understand and to have consistency than to be right. I know you think you understand my motivations but if you really believe anything other than this, you are mistaken. What we are trying to accomplish here, both you and me, is a bit of "forensic armchair engineering". It really is science: each piece of new information obtained can go toward proof of under-rating or toward accuracy/honesty on behalf of the manufacturers.

What we should do is team up, rather than compete. CarTest has its inherent strengths in its flexibility/customization and huge number of outputs. You have your strengths as well such as you ability to immediately know which variables and vehicle systemes and changes will have what effect and even how large those effects will be on drag performance. By the way your knowledge and abilities here far exceed mine. Quarter Jr has its strengths as well in that is seem to nail the all important trap result better than CarTest. Maybe at some point, with enough evidence, we can say with certainty which is the case for the GT-R under-rated or not. I really would enjoy working with you on this topic we are both passioniate about.

Since you have been so kind to really "lay it all out" here I would like to share with you some famous quotations from one of my personal heros, the late Carl Sagan, great phyiscist, astronomer and advocate of science and skepticism.

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the worthless ones."

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."

"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Cheers Bruce.

[ruff]

Swamp,
You appear to have this enormous ego that could never be satiated, coupled with your need to defend it and massage it, ad nauseam. Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word?

[EmPower]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Ruff, this is not about a comparison between M3 and GT-R. The GT-R is completely over-hyped in this specific way: Anyone who thinks that the GT-R can obtain its numbers based of Nissan magically reinventing the sports car is seriously deluded. It is not exceeding expectations AT ALL for absolute performance numbers GIVEN its actual power. When looking specifically at performance per dollar - no, the car is ABSOLUTELY NOT over-hyped, it delivers, big time, period. Hope that clarification helps clarify my opinion.

Not that you specifically will believe it (not many others with whom I have debated various GT-R probably will as well) but I am a big fan of the car. Fantastic technology, fantastic performance, innovation, purity of design for function and incredible price. Not sure how many times I have to say these things to convince folks that I am not a badge whore/too BMW loyal/do not give Nissan credit/etc. ....

That being said I do fall back to my position that the cars (E92 M3 and GT-R) are really only semi-competitors. Furthermore, I would staunchly disagree that the M3 is over-hyped. It has won most comparisons tests againsts competitors with more power and other technologies. Is has also already won engine of the year as well from one publication. There is so much press that is absolutely GUSHING with praise of the car and many who had criticisms are retreating from them. The praise thus far is also not solely with the engine but spread nicely over the car just in general.

and I couldnt agree more... its not a mere co-incidence that the 911 turbo/ GT2 were the prime targets for the GT-R. This car is not only a slap in the face for the german manufacturers, but to all of us petrol heads who have developed a german automotive cult. This exercise proves that a high performance car need not cost a better part of a $100,000. Plus, the amount of engineering that has gone into this car has proved that fast/ safe/ fuel efficeint can be economical. A true 'Volkswagen' then?

Porsche has been accused of late to mark up their cars so much that each unit costs 60% of the sticker price. So, it will be interesting to note what Porsche develops to answer this most amazing car of the 21st century

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

My question might be "What the hell took you so long?", but I already know the answer.

Swamp, you are a giant pain in the ass (and as a card-carrying Charter Member of PITA International, I speak with authority), but you are also my favorite pain in the ass.

You're intelligent, smart, articulate and passionate, and a very strong contributor in these and other topics.

In short, Swamp, you are the real thing. What my military son would call a "thirty pound head". He's an intelligent man himself (and didn't get where he is by being a dummy), but says he likes to "sit in the back with the other ten pounders".

The problem is, you have doubts where none are justified, hence the almost instant attack mode when disagreements arise. There's also the fact that, as with many other folks in a position where they've established something of a reputation, you end up spending a bunch of your time and energy defending instead of using what got you that reputation in the first place.

Folks may think your ego is too big, but my contention is that it's not big enough - and it's way too fragile. Speaking of which, the most remarkable thing I've noticed about fighter pilots in general (mostly Navy, but also Air Force when I've watched them congregate after joint "practice" missions), is that their egos are so damned big that they are completely invisible - and pretty much impregnable. They basically feel that they don't need to prove a thing against anybody but another fighter pilot.

Swamp, when your inner confidence level matches your capabilities, you'll be a better contributor. We are who we are, but we can all be better.

In this recent situation, can you see that you risk more credibility by defending like this, rather than early on saying you may have drawn an incorrect conclusion?

Bruce

PS - Yeah, I know you'll essentially read this as an attack and respond accordingly, but remember this post in the future.

Well put Bruce, and good approach.

I think swamp's response reveals the scientific part of his 30 lb head is dominant to a fault....

"It takes all kinds to make a world" - Roger Miller, do whacka do.....

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

Swamp,
You appear to have this enormous ego that could never be satiated, coupled with your need to defend it and massage it, ad nauseam. Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word?

To Hans as well.

Can you folks read? Have you entirely missed my point? I'm not sure how you think I should have responded to Bruce. I graciously accepted a compliment from him, paid him one right back as well making it one that was completely honest. I think my behavior would pass any etiquette test out there with flying colors. As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it. Bruce and I now seem to clearly agree that the jury is out on the principal topic of this thread. I just can not repeat enough times that the title of my post was too aggressive. This does not mean anyone is or is not incorrect yet, given the information we have. If you don't agree then we will have to leave it at a disagreement, however, that disagreement will then be Bruce and myself against you, again at least as far as the prinicipal topic here.

Maybe neither of you see the point of all the continued simulations of the 997TT and the GT-R. I, however, view this as a very interesting and yes truly a scientific investigation. If you think I am beating a dead horse or posting anything worthless or invalid go ahead and chime in on that. I want to know the elusive truth and if you do as well you can keep on reading the thread.

If either of you really want to know something about me please re-read the quotes I provided to Bruce. If you think the pursuit of truth makes me an ego-maniac so be it but you are really not seeing the big picture.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by EmPower

...
This exercise proves that a high performance car need not cost a better part of a $100,000. Plus, the amount of engineering that has gone into this car has proved that fast/ safe/ fuel efficeint can be economical. A true 'Volkswagen' then?

Porsche has been accused of late to mark up their cars so much that each unit costs 60% of the sticker price. So, it will be interesting to note what Porsche develops to answer this most amazing car of the 21st century

Your numbers here on Porsche profits are incorrect. The number is closer to 70-75%. Did you see my post #114 in this thread? Porsche profit margins have been published and the last figure I saw was 18% (on dealer invoice not selling prices). Also it is quite likely that the GT-R (if sold at the US sticker price we have been told) will be sold at a loss by Nissan,which again is not at all a totally bad thing.

I think the Mitsubishi Evo is one shining example that proves a very highly engineered and sophisticated sports car does not have to cost $100k. Well this case actually proves one does not even have to cost $50k.

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by swamp2

If you think the pursuit of truth makes me an ego-maniac so be it but you are really not seeing the big picture.

Hmmm... never called you an ego-maniac. I believe there's more to understanding every story beside the numbers and facts... including your own story Swamp! I'm not as scientific smart as you and I never will be, but I have a good grasp of human behavior and motivations, which makes this thread and all the arguments in it interesting to me in another way...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

Hmmm... never called you an ego-maniac. I believe there's more to understanding every story beside the numbers and facts... including your own story Swamp! I'm not as scientific smart as you and I never will be, but I have a good grasp of human behavior and motivations, which makes this thread and all the arguments in it interesting to me in another way...

True, I was addressing certain other parts of your reply to Bruce that directly concerned me. My reply to you and ruff seemed to simply fit together. Hopefully your understanding of human behavior does allow you to really understand my motivations which very few seem to. Cheers.