Is Porsche's comparison test of GT2 vs GTR true?

[jaeS4]

Originally Posted by footie

I think you are getting sucked in to marketing BS from Nissan here. No GTR makes only 480hp, the true figure is somewhere between 520hp and 530hp.

That's why i said it's BS. I was particularly reffering to the GTR that did 7:29, that car was probably making more than 530hp, probably more like 550hp or more.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,
I fully expected this kind of result, most people feel more comfortable thinking that Nissan cheated because it makes their decision for picking the M3 easier to swallow, especially as the two are so closely priced.

Sometimes I wonder why you have a M3.

Also the price difference is a little more in the US.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

That's why i said it's BS. I was particularly reffering to the GTR that did 7:29, that car was probably making more than 530hp, probably more like 550hp or more.

Along with BS time of the ZR-1.

It is called marketing, Nissan started it and now there are copy-cats.

[TLud]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

Any proof would suffice, but particularly a video proof from Porsche would be more sufficient. Nissan's claim of a stock 485hp car is BS, but according to the video Nissan had shown, 7:29 did happened IMO.

Yes, I have little doubt that Nissan got a GTR around the 'ring in 7:29. Whether they spent a week with dozens of runs to achieve that result (with a much lower overall average), used stickier tires, or changed the factory tune or otherwise altered the stock settings or components, something doesn't add up. The problem with video "proof," whether from Porsche or Nissan, is that it wouldn't detect any of these approaches (except maybe the tires).

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

What it proves to me and by the way was always my intention was to see where M3 owners lay with the idea that Nissan had produced a killer car for M3 money. This result shows that most owners are happier with the belief that the GTR isn't that quick and makes most sleep better at night in this knowledge.

At least there is 8 other posters who aren't easily guided sheep.

You could have asked that question directly which bears almost nothing in common with the question you actually posed. To infer results about one from the other is sheer absurdity. Most M3 owners, myself included, readily admit the GT-R is an amazing car full of great technology and offers a game changing price to performance ratio. Your pessimism about the feelings and motives of most M3 owners is neither correct nor useful.

Originally Posted by footie

I think you are getting sucked in to marketing BS from Nissan here. No GTR makes only 480hp, the true figure is somewhere between 520hp and 530hp.

Let me help you rephrase. GT-Rs have shown widely varying 1/4 mi trap speeds indicative of a 10-20% under rating. Furthermore track times also indicate at least a 10% under rating (530 hp). Based on the existing evidence pinning down all production GT-Rs at the narrow range of 520-530 hp is not reasonable.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Let me help you rephrase. GT-Rs have shown widely varying 1/4 mi trap speeds indicative of a 10-20% under rating. Furthermore track times also indicate at least a 10% under rating (530 hp). Based on the existing evidence pinning down all production GT-Rs at the narrow range of 520-530 hp is not reasonable.

WRONG

We have touched on this previously. When you take away the single poor result and the single amazing one the GTR 1/4 mile speeds all centre between 2~3mph, in other words it's very similar to that of the M3.

Not the huge difference you are trying to portray.

[footie]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

Sometimes I wonder why you have a M3.

Also the price difference is a little more in the US.

Why did I buy an M3? Because it's a brilliant machine, plain and simply but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot better, the GTR is one of those cars and it's the one which is very similar in priced (in the UK at least). But it isn't out here 'officially' until mid'09 and even then all were snapped up very quickly so chances of getting one are slim.

Though even if I could get one it's looks don't appeal to me in the same way as the M3 does and in any case I would see myself in an RS5 sooner than a GTR, even if it's performance couldn't match the big Nissan, it's a more complete day to day package which is what appeals to me first and foremost.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

WRONG

We have touched on this previously. When you take away the single poor result and the single amazing one the GTR 1/4 mile speeds all centre between 2~3mph, in other words it's very similar to that of the M3.

Not the huge difference you are trying to portray.

Sorry foot, you are again the one who is wrong. Thus I suggest you go easy with the huge bold font. It makes you look even worse and less credible.

The GT-R shows a much wider variation in trap speeds than the M3 even throwing out min and max values. Not sure how many times you have to be confronted with the data to accept it.

Variation on dragtimes.com:

Stock GT-R: 114-124 mph, 10 mph variation (note almost identical to the range found by magazines below)
E9X M3: 111-115 mph, 4 mph variation
m3post.com database, E9X M3: 111-115 mph

Trap speeds GT-R:

Car and Driver: 111 mph
Car and Driver: 115 mph
Edmunds: 115
Road and Track: 116 mph
Motortrend: 120 mph
DP Cars: 121 mph
Car and Driver: 124 mph
Jalopnik: 125 mph

Variation: 14 mph
Variation (excluding high&low): 9 mph

Heck you are only wrong here by a factor of 300% (9 mph vs. 3 mph)

115->124 mph is roughly (again via the simple formula) 475->595 hp

[footie]

It does appear that you are correct swamp, plus thanks for providing all of the data.

Though with the exception being the Road & Track tests all the rest from 111mph ~ 116mph were conducted on Bridgestone rubber and the others were equipped with Dunlops.

Can't say if that should make any difference but it is interesting. Also a comment from the motortrend test you supplied.

Nissan senior project engineer Bruce Robinson, on hand to observe the test, remarked that our Bridgestone tires appeared to spin more than did the Dunlops that were run on all previous tests he's observed.

P.S.
One more to add to the list, Autocar got a 11.7s time (no mph figures), again on Dunlops.