More drivers question Nissan's Nurburgring time

[footie]

March~May & Sept~Oct will probably produce the quickest possible time as track surface temp should still be good and air temp won't be at it's hottest.

7:25 for a 464hp CSL, somehow I doubt that one, it's just a shame we will never know.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by lucid

In Drivers-Republic? When you say in a few days, when and where will the results be published? Thanks.

It's all weather dependant, particularly this time of the year, but we're driving them tomorrow and then will be writing the article end of this week.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by swamp2

How much of a factor is the pavement temperature on lap time. We know lower temperatures have higher air density and are good for a bit more powere but I'd expect traction could suffer quite a bit as well.

Provided it's dry and the temperatures are above 6/7 degrees C, then traction effects are minor, but air density this time of the year is good, so perhaps there's a slight advantage. But the same will be true for the GT2.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Steved

Provided it's dry and the temperatures are above 6/7 degrees C, then traction effects are minor, but air density this time of the year is good, so perhaps there's a slight advantage. But the same will be true for the GT2.

I take it you will be doing other tests as well as the ring (i.e. acceleration figures) to see how each match up to the figures got else where. It would be great to have some dyno results as this might help determine how much extra piff the 7:29 car had but that might be asking a bit much.

P.S.
Best report on the wind speed as well.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

P.S. Best report on the wind speed as well.

But for God sakes don't film anything!

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

7:25 for a 464hp CSL, somehow I doubt that one, it's just a shame we will never know.

Typical, cast your doubt, provide no justification for it and further provide no estimate yourself. Absolutely typical. It is like discussing/debating with a kid.

Again the figure was BETWEEN 7:25 and 7:30, not 7:25 in particular. Also keep in mind the assumptions. +50 hp, -300 lb, MPSC tires, light wheels, M-DCT, tweaked chassis, suspension and brakes just as previous generation CSL, ace driver and great track conditions. A car of these specs, if able to over perform just as much as the previous generation E46 M3 CSL should be capable of a time in this range.

Although we may not find out with BMW's official CSL, many folks will be building tweaked ones with loosely similar specs and will be hitting the ring. We may find out much more than you think.

Anyway we are both getting way way off topic.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Typical, cast your doubt, provide no justification for it and further provide no estimate yourself. Absolutely typical. It is like discussing/debating with a kid.

swamp, this was the typical response I expected a few weeks ago, not now that we have conversed in PMs over the subject and I thought came to an understanding and agreement.

I didn't give a figure because at the time I hadn't thought much on the subject and didn't feel giving a half-arsed reply would be the right thing to do.

OK,

1: What is the chance of a 300lbs weight lose? This might be pushing it as most CSL were purchased with air-con and stereo, both of which bumped up the weight by quite a bit and now that the 997GT3 comes with both standard I doubt BMW will not offer the same.

2: The current CUP tyres are standard spec in Europe when you order the 19" alloys. This will be the same for the new CSL unless a new and better version is made by Michelin which I doubt.

3: The extra 50hp will make a big difference on the long straights and should improve the time by quite a bit, as will a more race specced suspension and strengthening to the chassis.

If the M-DCT M3 can improve by 5 seconds over the manual then that will drop the current M3's time to 8 minutes dead, the extra power should yield another 8 seconds and the suspension another 10 seconds. That would put the CSL at 7:42 with maybe another 4 seconds for a more modest 150lbs drop.

So I reckon the M3 CSL could possibly be capable of a 7:38~7:40 time and I believe that is an impressive improvement on what was a truly amazing car (E46 CSL).

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp, this was the typical response I expected a few weeks ago, not now that we have conversed in PMs over the subject and I thought came to an understanding and agreement.

Not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by footie

I didn't give a figure because at the time I hadn't thought much on the subject and didn't feel giving a half-arsed reply would be the right thing to do.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by footie

1: What is the chance of a 300lbs weight lose?

I am not sure, but this was the drop in the E46 so I simply used it as a guidline.

Originally Posted by footie

2: The current CUP tyres are standard spec in Europe when you order the 19" alloys. This will be the same for the new CSL unless a new and better version is made by Michelin which I doubt.

Not quite correct. We have been through this. Cup+ on 19s in EU, regular Cup would be the likely choice for the CSL IMO. Either way my estimate is with Cup not Cup+.

Originally Posted by footie

So I reckon the M3 CSL could possibly be capable of a 7:38~7:40 time and I believe that is an impressive improvement on what was a truly amazing car (E46 CSL).

Don't forget there would be a definite difference for Horst from SA driving vs. a factory ace (not that I think such factory ace times should be held in higher regard or as more of a standard than SA)! This should be in the 5-10 second range. With that in mind I think we actually agree.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I am not sure, but this was the drop in the E46 so I simply used it as a guidline.

I understand that, but as I highlighted the 997GT3 now comes standard with air-con and stereo so the likelihood is that IF BMW gave us a CSL it too would come equipped with these things and the chances of dropping 300lbs would be highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not quite correct. We have been through this. Cup+ on 19s in EU, regular Cup would be the likely choice for the CSL IMO. Either way my estimate is with Cup not Cup+.

Unsure if you can still get the original CUP tyres. I was under the impression that only the CUP+ are available now and when you consider the 997GT3RS is also only available with this version I think I might be right in this thinking. Also was the CUP+ not developed to be better in the wet which would surely give the advantage on daily drive.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Unsure if you can still get the original CUP tyres. I was under the impression that only the CUP+ are available now and when you consider the 997GT3RS is also only available with this version I think I might be right in this thinking. Also was the CUP+ not developed to be better in the wet which would surely give the advantage on daily drive.

MPSC (non "+") are absolutely available in the US as aftermarket but no idea on whether you can buy a car with them included. If OEMs went away from Cup to Cup+ I bet it was all about liabilty.

Yes Cup+ was designed for better wet performance, which guarantees worse ultimate dry performance. Which makes a better daily driver depends on how much it rains where you live.

[watrob]

Top Gear Australia had the GT-R up against the Porsche GT2, the GT2 beat it around there track by 3sec, Stig drove both.

But the main point was the Pressenter did not believe that the time done at the Ring by the GT-R was a true representation on the GT-R that he had driven and ones he had driven in the past.

What he was implying was the GT-R they used was not standard car. He went on to say it was heavier and had less power so in current guise something would have needed to be changed to do the time.

I don't think Nissan would have been to happy about seeing that on our national TV. Overall he liked the car for the price and there was no mention of transmission problems or that you cannot use LC.

They seemed to be more impressed with the GT2!

[swamp2]

The evidence is quite widespread from message boards, to print journalists, to factory test drivers, race drivers, TV journalists, even other competing OEMs; they all agree 7:29 is not possible with factory specs. In my opinion the biggest questions about that particular car are:

1. hp - most reasonable folks admit a substantial under rating, the question is just how much is "substantial".
2. Torque
3. Weight
4. Suspension tweaks (within factory specs and tolerances or not)
5. Tires - were they any special version, specially treated or flat out not the true 100% legit OEM factory tires.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

MPSC (non "+") are absolutely available in the US as aftermarket but no idea on whether you can buy a car with them included. If OEMs went away from Cup to Cup+ I bet it was all about liabilty.

Yes Cup+ was designed for better wet performance, which guarantees worse ultimate dry performance. Which makes a better daily driver depends on how much it rains where you live.

I wonder is it old stock because on the official UK Michelin website only the CUP+ is mentioned, no longer is the CUP available here in UK and probably Europe too.

Maybe someone from Europe with a CSL can enlighten us as to whether they are still available here on special offer.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

MPSC (non "+") are absolutely available in the US as aftermarket but no idea on whether you can buy a car with them included. If OEMs went away from Cup to Cup+ I bet it was all about liabilty.

Yes Cup+ was designed for better wet performance, which guarantees worse ultimate dry performance. Which makes a better daily driver depends on how much it rains where you live.

Are you sure about this? I've been intrigued by the Cup+, but can't really find anything that confirms your point of view.

You could be absolutely correct about the Cup+ plus being less effective than the original PSC in the dry, but it's not a given that a tire doing better in the wet means it won't do as well under more ideal conditions.

After all, Michelin came out with the PS2 (while continuing to build the original Pilot Sport even now, I believe) to work moderately well in the wet, which trust me, the Pilot Sport won't do. Their claim is that the PS2 is very slightly better in the dry as well, but I admit that marketing said that.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

After all, Michelin came out with the PS2 (while continuing to build the original Pilot Sport even now, I believe) to work moderately well in the wet, which trust me, the Pilot Sport won't do. Their claim is that the PS2 is very slightly better in the dry as well, but I admit that marketing said that.

I have PSCs mounted on my stock 19" rims. I drove with them on wet roads for a couple of days before putyin on my winter setup. They are loose in wet conditions. They outperformed the PS2s on a dry track without a question. Definitely more bite. How much of an improvement I can't really say for sure. Maybe shaved 1/2 sec of my NHMS lap time. But more importantly, they don't get all greasy in 10 minutes like PS2s do.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

I have PSCs mounted on my stock 19" rims. I drove with them on wet roads for a couple of days before putyin on my winter setup. They are loose in wet conditions. They outperformed the PS2s on a dry track without a question. Definitely more bite. How much of an improvement I can't really say for sure. Maybe shaved 1/2 sec of my NHMS lap time. But more importantly, they don't get all greasy in 10 minutes like PS2s do.

My experience on an E46 was quite different. Much better in the wet of course, but couldn't tell much of a difference on track. I admit that I never gave them a longer term workout, however. Three or four laps was it.

Now that I think about it, however, I've never driven a street tire on track that didn't get greasy after a few laps. Can't actually compare these two in that regard, however. Never put in enough laps.

Bruce

Edit: I just noticed (duh) you were talking about Pilot Sport Cups, while I was talking about Pilot Sports. The evolution of the Pilot Sport is the PS2, and the dry handling of these two tires is very nearly identical. Sport Cups are obviously a different matter.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Are you sure about this? I've been intrigued by the Cup+, but can't really find anything that confirms your point of view.

I am not 100% on this. I am pretty sure I got the information from Southlight, a very knowledgable contributor here on this forum.

This page describes the dual compound feature of the tire for improved wet performance but also describes it as just the MPSC and calls the MPSC+ as a slightly modified OEM version. The modification of grooving sounds as if it is to further enhance wet performance.

Perhaps a previous generation of the MPSC (non plus) did not have any design features (dual compound) for improved wet performance. It is odd that a tire designed for all out track performance does have this compromise.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Perhaps a previous generation of the MPSC (non plus) did not have any design features (dual compound) for improved wet performance.

Silicon improves wet weather grip without affecting the dry weather grip.

Originally Posted by swamp2

It is odd that a tire designed for all out track performance does have this compromise.

swamp, please think about this statement for a moment. Do you really think for one moment that even the CUP track isn't a compromise compared to a proper track tyre?

A proper track tyre for dry use is a slick, but clearly that would be useless in day to day driving which the M3CSL was designed for. The original CUP tyre was a compromise which happened to be not that great in the wet or cold but this has been improved with the latest version, no doubt the one after that will be even better in both disiplines.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I am not 100% on this. I am pretty sure I got the information from Southlight, a very knowledgable contributor here on this forum.

This page describes the dual compound feature of the tire for improved wet performance but also describes it as just the MPSC and calls the MPSC+ as a slightly modified OEM version. The modification of grooving sounds as if it is to further enhance wet performance.

Perhaps a previous generation of the MPSC (non plus) did not have any design features (dual compound) for improved wet performance. It is odd that a tire designed for all out track performance does have this compromise.

As footie has said, this is pretty far from an all-out track tire, but it's serious medicine for street cars. The PSC+ appears to be an updated PSC with that narrow groove, put there for OEM use so you don't spin out into that shopping mall if a kid spits in the street as you are rounding a corner.

Bottom line, at a guess it's extremely close indeed to the PSC, and pretty far removed from the PS2 or Pilot Sport.

lucid, did you see my amended post about three back? Apparently we're at mixed signals, with me referring to the Pilot Sport and you referring to the Pilot Sport Cup.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As footie has said, this is pretty far from an all-out track tire, but it's serious medicine for street cars.

No disagreement with this. However there is never a free lunch. The modifications in the tire that improve wet grip limit ultimate dry grip. So I disagree with the statement above about silicon.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No disagreement with this. However there is never a free lunch. The modifications in the tire that improve wet grip limit ultimate dry grip. So I disagree with the statement above about silicon.

I would tend to agree in this particular case. Assuming that groove is the only difference, it could negatively affect ultimate stick in dry conditions to some degree, while improving wet cornering.

But sometimes you do get a free lunch. When we replaced the Pilot Sports on our E46 M3 with PS2s, the cost was the same, with similar ultimate dry grip, but wet-weather traction was much improved.

Bruce

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I would tend to agree in this particular case. Assuming that groove is the only difference, it could negatively affect ultimate stick in dry conditions to some degree, while improving wet cornering.

But sometimes you do get a free lunch. When we replaced the Pilot Sports on our E46 M3 with PS2s, the cost was the same, with similar ultimate dry grip, but wet-weather traction was much improved.

Bruce

I don't agree that the PSC will be dramatically better than the PSC+ in the dry. When you consider the development years between both designs and the advances in tyres technology I would be surprised if we are talking about anything more than a couple of percentage difference in the dry times.

It's the equivalent to saying the E46 should be quicker than the E92 because the newer car has a more comfortable ride. I know, stupid comparison but you get the point.