GT-R breaks its own Ring record

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by Boosted335

sorry 530hp and 3800 is still not enough to do that...

Here's something that some people fail to mention. Some cars are more suited to a drivers preferences. So just because 1 driver is faster in car "A" vs car "B", doesn't mean that another driver couldn't be faster in car "B". I believe the car is under-rated, but since when did under-rating a car become a reason to shit on a car, a company, or an achievement. The 335i is under-rated and I don't hear anyone claiming that BMW is a lie or a cheat. They (Nissan) set out a goal, and from what I can see a farily stock GTR has no problem keeping up, if not beat, some of the best from Porsche and other sports cars costing double and triple, no matter what its "rated" at. I personally don't care if its rated at 350hp. No one seemed to care when the R34, and R33, were rated at 276hp for that silly Gentleman's Agreement, even though everyone knew they were pushing closer to 350-400 hp. All that mattered was you were getting supercar performance for sports car prices.

Can the GTR do the time posted, I believe so. What power it does it with is questionable, but is within reason. If it did it with 530hp, then I don't care as long as factory cars are coming with this much. I care more about the technology that it makes this power with, or puts the power down with, or allows a 3800lb car achieve that time with. Especially when considering the price point it comes in at. Weight isn't the only underlier in performance. When you consider the advantage of exit speed a sophisticated AWD system has, it can really even up the playing field when outmatched in power to weight ratio from a 2WD vehicle. Skill, and how comfortable a driver is behind the wheel, is also also a huge factor, when extracting the maximum performance a car is able to achieve. The GT2 is probably a faster car, but my guess is Nissan put a much bigger effort in achieving that time than Porsche did, hence the hard to believe results.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

Nissan has officially stated that this is a 2010 Base GTR with Vspec wheels and rubber. Everything else is exactly the same as you would get walking into a dealer...

My understanding is those wheels and tires are a regular production option for the 2010 models. Therefore, you just check the order form and your car comes with that combination from the factory.

If that turns out not to be the case, then I'd personally look askance at this new and improved time, the same way I view the 8:05 clocking by that M3 with sneakers and pads that are not RPO available here in the states.

Bruce

[footie]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Here's something that some people fail to mention. Some cars are more suited to a drivers preferences. So just because 1 driver is faster in car "A" vs car "B", doesn't mean that another driver couldn't be faster in car "B". I believe the car is under-rated, but since when did under-rating a car become a reason to shit on a car, a company, or an achievement. The 335i is under-rated and I don't hear anyone claiming that BMW is a lie or a cheat. They (Nissan) set out a goal, and from what I can see a farily stock GTR has no problem keeping up, if not beat, some of the best from Porsche and other sports cars costing double and triple, no matter what its "rated" at. I personally don't care if its rated at 350hp. No one seemed to care when the R34, and R33, were rated at 276hp for that silly Gentleman's Agreement, even though everyone knew they were pushing closer to 350-400 hp. All that mattered was you were getting supercar performance for sports car prices.

Can the GTR do the time posted, I believe so. What power it does it with is questionable, but is within reason. If it did it with 530hp, then I don't care as long as factory cars are coming with this much. I care more about the technology that it makes this power with, or puts the power down with, or allows a 3800lb car achieve that time with. Especially when considering the price point it comes in at. Weight isn't the only underlier in performance. When you consider the advantage of exit speed a sophisticated AWD system has, it can really even up the playing field when outmatched in power to rate ratio. Skill, and how comfortable a driver is behind the wheel, is also also a huge factor, when extracting the maximum performance a car is able to achieve. The GT2 is probably a faster car, but my guess is Nissan put a much bigger effort in achieving that time than Porsche did, hence the hard to believe results.

Well said.

Most manufacturers under-rate their cars for one reason or another and most if not all of them are FI engines. I personally know that the GTI kicks more than quoted, there is enough people of a similar opinion about the 35i in all forms and Imperzas & EVOs are also well known to produce a bit more than quoted. Even a 10% improvement from a FI engine that the GTR is believed to have isn't something I class as out of the ordinary.

Take the DR's comparison test, that would have still put the GTR as a bigger outer in the regression than their lap with the GT2 based on power and weight, and if it had have came with the stickier Dunlop rubber then that difference would have been greater still.

Porsche got their GT2 around the ring in 7:32 and I think SportAuto almost matched that time from a 3 lap run which says a lot as to how hard they (Porsche) were going when they set their lap time. I'm guess it's lower than it's true potential because the CGT is so hard to control around the ring that Porsche didn't want it's time embarrassed.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boosted335

sorry 530hp and 3800 is still not enough to do that...

I think it is right on the edge, 550-560 would make it much more plausible but 530 is right about at the edge. Don't forget the number of seconds each of the other factors working together can provide; driver, near track like tires, favorable track conditions, favorable weather, the cars advanced AWD system, factory support, hundreds (perhaps) of laps, etc., etc.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

I believe the car is under-rated, but since when did under-rating a car become a reason to shit on a car, a company, or an achievement. The 335i is under-rated and I don't hear anyone claiming that BMW is a lie or a cheat. They (Nissan) set out a goal, and from what I can see a farily stock GTR has no problem keeping up, if not beat, some of the best from Porsche and other sports cars costing double and triple, no matter what its "rated" at.

I have repeatedly argued that the 335i is under rated. A simple look at its weight and average trap speeds compared to the E46 M3 is ample evidence. I have also repeatedly criticized BMW for doing this. Cheating is cheating in my opinion. However, when you make such a HUGE marketing deal out of your performance, both straight line acceleration as well as 'Ring times, you are simply asking for more scrutiny and criticism. Of course all that being said the car is damn impressive, under rated or not. You simply can't deny that. It is still impressive at the current price point after 3 very rapid price increases.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Almost right. In addition to myself, there are others here with actual functioning brains who don't agree with you. Your bias (on this topic) is clear.

This is about both facts and interpretation of facts. Lets stick to the facts, rather than feelings, interpretations, bias, etc. Is the contrapositive of your above statement the case as well, such that those that agree with me have non functioning brains? If so you have a non functioning brain since we agree about the facts of this achievement.

Most of the regulars here, yourself included, seem to have come to the same conclusion about the facts of the cars condition and the other contributing factors that led to sub 7:30 times. The rest is opinion built around personal thoughts on what is cheating. Your bias statement has been repeatedly disputed with ample evidence. Try to realize the distinction between healthy skepticism and bias. I know it has been a real challenge for you but keep trying.

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have repeatedly argued that the 335i is under rated. A simple look at its weight and average trap speeds compared to the E46 M3 is ample evidence. I have also repeatedly criticized BMW for doing this. Cheating is cheating in my opinion. However, when you make such a HUGE marketing deal out of your performance, both straight line acceleration as well as 'Ring times, you are simply asking for more scrutiny and criticism. Of course all that being said the car is damn impressive, under rated or not. You simply can't deny that. It is still impressive at the current price point after 3 very rapid price increases.

Fair enough. You don't agree with manufactures under-rating their vehicles. I was sticking up for the GTR because I feel that it gets undue scrutiny when this is a very common practice amongst many, but your opinion seems targeted across all, which is quite fair.

What's funny is after debating this until the cow comes home, I feel like most of us (with a functioning brain) are coming to a similar conclusion. Which is a good thing, isn't this the point of voicing our different opinions. So that we can learn something and possibly formulate a more accurate opinion based on the new info/data we didn't use when first formulating our opinions.

Much agreed on your last sentence also. Odds are I would never buy this car, mainly for reasons like, I prefer RWD, its no featherweight, the traction control issue, and Nissan's bi-annual price increase. But at the end of the day, when I look at what this car can do for the price they charge. The track capability as well as drag strip performance. The ability of Nissan's engineers and designers that went into the technology, engineering, and execution of this car without charging Porsche/Ferrari/Lambo prices is an incredible feat, and floors me every time I read about what this car is capable of. This is along the same lines as what the team building the Veyron, or S65B40 achieved. Basically, a technological marvel, that sets the bar for what many other teams could be capable of.

[footie]

I dug around the different forums and it seems that both the press and Porsche were allowed to examine the GTR before and after it's lap so if true this should surely put to rest to belief that Nissan were somehow cheating.

I'm always surprised as to why so few members have commented on the fact that Porsche were there, though I am not surprised that Porsche myself are keeping very quiet.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Fair enough. You don't agree with manufactures under-rating their vehicles. I was sticking up for the GTR because I feel that it gets undue scrutiny when this is a very common practice amongst many, but your opinion seems targeted across all, which is quite fair.

What's funny is after debating this until the cow comes home, I feel like most of us (with a functioning brain) are coming to a similar conclusion. Which is a good thing, isn't this the point of voicing our different opinions. So that we can learn something and possibly formulate a more accurate opinion based on the new info/data we didn't use when first formulating our opinions.

The thing is Nissan and Porchse brought this type of attention and scrutiny upon themselves. They both made huge publicity stunts out of the whole thing. It is not as if people are going out of their way and making something out of nothing in that respect. I applaud Nissan for setting a goal (beating the TT) and accomplishing it. But when you make such a big deal out of it, people will want to know the details, which is exactly what's happening all over the place, and that's only fair.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

This is about both facts and interpretation of facts. Lets stick to the facts, rather than feelings, interpretations, bias, etc. Is the contrapositive of your above statement the case as well, such that those that agree with me have non functioning brains? If so you have a non functioning brain since we agree about the facts of this achievement.

My comment was in direct response to your "great, all knowing Bruce..." BS.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Most of the regulars here, yourself included, seem to have come to the same conclusion about the facts of the cars condition and the other contributing factors that led to sub 7:30 times. The rest is opinion built around personal thoughts on what is cheating. Your bias statement has been repeatedly disputed with ample evidence. Try to realize the distinction between healthy skepticism and bias. I know it has been a real challenge for you but keep trying.

As to bias, there are only two possibilities one can infer from your willingness to believe that Nissan ran a short lap (with published video) and then announced their outstanding times. One is that you're stupid - and you're not stupid. Therefore...

You have not provided "ample evidence" that you are not biased on the topic. In fact, no evidence at all.

Is there a third possibility that you can come up with? One that might be somehow construed as evidence?

[1cleanm6]

BEAT THE 911TT?

negative.....

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

My comment was in direct response to your "great, all knowing Bruce..." BS.



As to bias, there are only two possibilities one can infer from your willingness to believe that Nissan ran a short lap (with published video) and then announced their outstanding times. One is that you're stupid - and you're not stupid. Therefore...

You have not provided "ample evidence" that you are not biased on the topic. In fact, no evidence at all.

Is there a third possibility that you can come up with? One that might be somehow construed as evidence?

Beat that dead horse, pummel it, pound it, kick it, smash it....

I don't believe Nissan ran a short lap, period. I really thought we ended this months ago. For a very short period of time I believed that, based on a seemingly credible argument by a journalist. The reason is really obvious - it was the easy way out solution that made observations and specifications consistent. I know, I know, you never have a single second of poor judgement or brain farts, well I am human and I do. Perhaps more importantly I readily admit them.

I am not biased on this topic because I detest all under rating (including that by BMW) and based on the fact that I like many Nissan products and intensely admire the GT-R, predominantly from the technology and price to performance ratio perspectives. The first Sentra SE-R was one of my very early "loves" from Nissan...

Sorry Bruce, you are wrong, wrong wrong. I can say this so positively because this is a matter of MY feelings and opinions, not yours.

You'll just never see it - intenese scrutiny is not bias and I have been right from day one - the GT-R is substantially under rated.

Case closed.

[1cleanm6]

honestly i dont even know why this is going on anymore?

Would you pay 90k for a nissan..? I wouldnt

Is a gtr nicer then a 911 turbo, gt3, gt2, or a 4s...no

Can you launch the porsche...yes

[1cleanm6]

honestly i dont even know why this is going on anymore?

Would you pay 90k for a nissan..? I wouldnt

Is a gtr nicer then a 911 turbo, gt3, gt2, or a 4s...no

Can you launch the porsche...yes

everyone acts like they are track junkies here when 99 percent dont even go to track.

So quit it...

Honestly comparing a 130-140k porsche to a 90k nissan is so stupid...

The porsche has so much more going for it eventhough the price is higher...

[bogdan]

The one question in my mind is:

How many times can this GT-R acutally make it around the ring beore the tires are cooked and the pads are on fire.

If we're only talking about a "magic lap," the in my eyes the arguement is out the window.

Who cares if you can go around the Ring once at blasing speed, only to not make it around the second time.

At least to me, repetition is the best gauge of the true performance values of the car. Consistency is key, and it does not seem like there is too much of that with the GT-R's times.

Sorry to go off-topic... just food for thought.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bogdan

How many times can this GT-R acutally make it around the ring beore the tires are cooked and the pads are on fire.

Although I have not driven the Ring I think it is safe to assume that the track is plenty long to get the tires and braking system both fully to a high/operating temperature and to also get those systems to peak and cool a bit back toward the operating point. The track is ~20 km.

In other words, if it can manage the track once without an serious temperature problems, it can almost for sure do that repeatedly. Sure not at the exact same pace, just because that is absolutely on the limit driving but at a close pace.

[bogdan]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Although I have not driven the Ring I think it is safe to assume that the track is plenty long to get the tires and braking system both fully to a high/operating temperature and to also get those systems to peak and cool a bit back toward the operating point. The track is ~20 km.

In other words, if it can manage the track once without an serious temperature problems, it can almost for sure do that repeatedly. Sure not at the exact same pace, just because that is absolutely on the limit driving but at a close pace.

I see your point about the temps, but I was thinking more on the lines of lifespan.

Tires for example have a finite ammount of tread. I can't imagine that beast of a car being kind to the wear of them.


I would like to see a comparison test of 5 or 10 laps of the Ring with times averaged. At least that way it would take some questions out of the equation...ex. tarted up software that almost makes the car overheat, super sticky r-comps... etc.

This should hold true for it's competitors also.

If we're talking about quick cars... I assume we are talking about competition...where longevity plays a factor. True races aren't decided in one lap.

[M3WC]

Do people really think you could buy a US spec GTR off the showroom floor, fly it over the the "ring"? Put Nissan's test driver in it and run a 7:27 lap. No fucking way. Sorry not going to happen.

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by Boosted335

honestly i dont even know why this is going on anymore?

Would you pay 90k for a nissan..? I wouldnt

Is a gtr nicer then a 911 turbo, gt3, gt2, or a 4s...no

Can you launch the porsche...yes

everyone acts like they are track junkies here when 99 percent dont even go to track.

So quit it...

Honestly comparing a 130-140k porsche to a 90k nissan is so stupid...

The porsche has so much more going for it eventhough the price is higher...

Is everyone a track junkie? Ofcourse not, so then we should all be driving a Camry?

Can you launch the GTR? Yes

Does the Porsche have more going for it? Yes, it's a brand that has a long and great history in racing. Porsche has a lot more options to customize the vehicle to your preference. It's also a status symbol, which works wonders for those with self esteem issues. It gives off the perception of someone that has a lot of money (credit).

The reason they even compare a 911 to a GTR is because they are very close in performance. However, with the GTR you'd have enough money left over to afford a family car and the expenses of tracking said GTR. All whilst passing most 911's in any contest of speed you can think of. 99% of people don't track their cars, but we're on an M3 enthusiast forum, where that percentage goes down significantly, hence the enthusiastic debate. If you don't want to talk about it, ignore it.

[footie]

GTR's time is down to 7:26.7 now from 7:27.6.

A small improvement but at least it's going the right way. I believe there is another attempt taking place either right now or soon.

[jaeS4]

Damn! 7:40 for the GT3 is quite impressive. Now if everyone here believes the DR's test when the GT2 did 7:49, would this mean that 7:40 for GT3 is questionable?

Originally Posted by Autoblog

2010 Porsche 911 GT3 runs the 'Ring in 7:40, reps still claim Nissan GT-R is slower

The 2010 Porsche 911 GT3 is unquestionably bad-ass. Its naturally aspirated 3.8-liter flat-six provides 435 hp from behind the driver's seat, and its track-tuned chassis can dance with the world's most nimble supercars. The free-wheeling product of Stuttgart has been undergoing testing at the famed Nurburgring in Germany (along with every other sports coupe worth its salt) and it's been timed at an unofficial 7:40. Porsche driving ace Walter Rohrl was behind the wheel for the sprightly lap.

While 7:40 isn't enough time to best the 7:26 from the 638 hp Corvette ZR1, it's a very impressive time nonetheless (BTW - During testing Rohrl posted a 7:45 in a borrowed Ferrari F430 Scuderia). Nissan probably isn't impressed, though, since it recently clocked the GT-R at 7:27. Well, Porsche is still calling balderdash on that claim, telling Motor Trend that the twin-turbo Nissan is only good for a time of 7:56 in stock US form. Just under eight minutes is an amazing time, but almost 30 seconds slower than reports from Nissan.

The Nissan vs. Porsche 'Ring smack-down feels as though its about to peter out, but the grudge match is almost to the point that the GT-R vs. GT3 drama should play out on premium cable. Who can we call to set this up?

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

Damn! 7:40 for the GT3 is quite impressive. Now if everyone here believes the DR's test when the GT2 did 7:49, would this mean that 7:40 for GT3 is questionable?

Nope.

(a) You're comparing times from two different drivers, one of whom is much more familiar with the ring (Rohrl).

(b) The 997.2 GT3 probably has closed the gap on the 997.1 GT2, performance wise.