Porsche accuses Nissan GT-R of cheating the "Ring":

[footie]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

Footie, not wrong. 24H/VLN drivers can do lap after lap with more or less the same laptimes over and over again. So Suzuki can too. 100% sure.

I give an idea, you say:wrong. Are you god or what?

Maybe he(Suzuki) even can do a FASTER lap. Are you scared he cannot do a 7:29 for the second time? Is that it?Because it's too difficult even for a pro like Suzuki? Which means the whole 7:29 would be a farce because every normal car journalist would do a 7:45/7:55 in that same GTR? I want more proof.

So you are trying to same that almost every lap done will be the same, to within what..... 0.5~0.75s?

Sorry to disagree but that is pie in the sky stuff.

Do not look at racing conditions in the same light as hot lap conditions, with one you are holding back a bit while the other is an all out assault.

In my opinion if Suzuki took another GTR and lapped with 6 seconds of that time would be enough proof if needed, and this time would also have to be similar track conditions.

No two cars are the same, call it manufacturing variables.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by footie

In my opinion if Suzuki took another GTR and lapped with 6 seconds of that time would be enough proof if needed, and this time would also have to be similar track conditions.

No two cars are the same, call it manufacturing variables.

YES, within, let's say 6 seconds, not within half a second, and YES that would be enough proof AS WELL man. But I(as in me) want more INDEPENDENT proof, than just Nissan Motor Co showing some in car vid and that's all folks...

So Mr Suzuki be my guest in another GTR at a dry Ring with carjournalists watching and do some 5/10 laps and at least one of those laps should be a 7:35 but a 7:45 would be insufficient for the Porsche crew

A 7:29 is assumed the truth on the internet while the 7:55 with the 'Porsche engineer' driving is assumed bs more or less. And I'm not a Porsche freak at all....

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

Footie, not wrong. 24H/VLN drivers can do lap after lap with more or less the same laptimes over and over again. So Suzuki can too. 100% sure.

I give an idea, you say:wrong. Are you god or what?

Maybe he(Suzuki) even can do a FASTER lap. Are you scared he cannot do a 7:29 for the second time? Is that it?Because it's too difficult even for a pro like Suzuki? Which means the whole 7:29 would be a farce because every normal car journalist would do a 7:45/7:55 in that same GTR? I want more proof.

Not to nit but this thread is most interesting....

Enduro drivers follow a pre-determined pace to conserve fuel and plan service windows and this pace is rarely at 10/10ths.....

When they actually wind it up, the lap times are much faster and more erratic.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

YES, within, let's say 6 seconds, not within half a second, and YES that would be enough proof AS WELL man. But I(as in me) want more INDEPENDENT proof, than just Nissan Motor Co showing some in car vid and that's all folks...

So Mr Suzuki be my guest in another GTR at a dry Ring with carjournalists watching and do some 5/10 laps and at least one of those laps should be a 7:35 but a 7:45 would be insufficient for the Porsche crew

A 7:29 is assumed the truth on the internet while the 7:55 with the 'Porsche engineer' driving is assumed bs more or less. And I'm not a Porsche freak at all....

As I've mentioned, if I were the marketing guy in charge at Nissan, I wouldn't bother, because I believe that running another one somewhere in the 7:29 area would convince some people, but then there are the various Swamps out there who would continue to cry foul because they simply can't believe a car with specs like the Nissan can accomplish that. Therefore, nothing really accomplished.

As for the assumed truth of the 7:29, what do you think these hundreds of posts arguing the point are actually about?

As for me, I believe the 7:29 because in all of the comparison tests I've read between the Porsche Turbo and GT-R, the GT-R always beats up on the Turbo by at least a second per minute of lap times, so with the Porsche at 7:38...

As for the 7:54 time done by Porsche in the GT-R, I find it interesting not only because it's so slow, but also because Porsche's resident cockpit assassin was not at the controls at the time. I understand why that's so, but of course it's another good reason to throw out that time.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Keep mentioning me and I will keep opining (or defending myself as required).

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As I've mentioned, if I were the marketing guy in charge at Nissan, I wouldn't bother, because I believe that running another one somewhere in the 7:29 area would convince some people, but then there are the various Swamps out there who would continue to cry foul because they simply can't believe a car with specs like the Nissan can accomplish that. Therefore, nothing really accomplished.

Yes various swamps, me, and dozens of other; journalists, enthusiasts, scientists, members on this and other forums, other automotive engineers and other automobile companies... Wow do I feel alone an isolated.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As for me, I believe the 7:29 because in all of the comparison tests I've read between the Porsche Turbo and GT-R, the GT-R always beats up on the Turbo by at least a second per minute of lap times, so with the Porsche at 7:38...

On slower tracks. Can you point out a track with an average speed of about 100 mph where this is the case?

[footie]

Swamp,

The only motoring journalist which I know of that has commented to the affect that he disagree with the 7:29 time had been proven wrong and made a big boob by not researching before commenting and the only other to publicly say it's fake is Porsche and their reasons are obvious, Nissan has proven them to be over priced and over rated in one foul swoop.

You may not be alone in voicing the opinion it's a fake time for a stock car, but there is enough additional tests/reviews to say that the GTR is comfortably quicker on a track than the 997Turbo and if the time the Porsche has done is to be believed then you have to conclude the possibility that the time by Nissan is also possible too.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Swamp,

The only motoring journalist which I know of that has commented to the affect that he disagree with the 7:29 time had been proven wrong and made a big boob by not researching before commenting and the only other to publicly say it's fake is Porsche and their reasons are obvious, Nissan has proven them to be over priced and over rated in one foul swoop.

You may not be alone in voicing the opinion it's a fake time for a stock car, but there is enough additional tests/reviews to say that the GTR is comfortably quicker on a track than the 997Turbo and if the time the Porsche has done is to be believed then you have to conclude the possibility that the time by Nissan is also possible too.

I firmly stick to my primary contention that the 7:29 time is not possible in a car with specified power and weight, period.

Most of us agree on an under rating, which you can view as a good thing. I think it is terrible and dishonest. One big question is by how much the car that did the 7:29 was under rated.

I have read many articles that as well doubt various combinations of pwer/weight/achieved results. Heck almost every magazine that tests and gets good results brings this up.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I firmly stick to my primary contention that the 7:29 time is not possible in a car with specified power and weight, period.

Most of us agree on an under rating, which you can view as a good thing. I think it is terrible and dishonest. One big question is by how much the car that did the 7:29 was under rated.

I have read many articles that as well doubt various combinations of pwer/weight/achieved results. Heck almost every magazine that tests and gets good results brings this up.

I agree and have said as much. I don't think that the car which achieved the 7:29 is any different than ones tested by Autocar, EVO or any of the US magazines.

To say it's dishonest and terrible by it's under rated is an idealistic view on life, I see it as Nissan guaranteeing that each and every GTR meets or betters their quoted figures, regardless of the air temperature and it's a view which many manufacturers do with turbo powered cars. BMW's 335i, VAG's 2.0TFSI, Subaru's 2.0T and almost all others produce more than quoted when put to the test so why should we expect anything different from Nissan's GTR engine.

[Herms]

Originally Posted by footie

I agree and have said as much. I don't think that the car which achieved the 7:29 is any different than ones tested by Autocar, EVO or any of the US magazines.

To say it's dishonest and terrible by it's under rated is an idealistic view on life, I see it as Nissan guaranteeing that each and every GTR meets or betters their quoted figures, regardless of the air temperature and it's a view which many manufacturers do with turbo powered cars. BMW's 335i, VAG's 2.0TFSI, Subaru's 2.0T and almost all others produce more than quoted when put to the test so why should we expect anything different from Nissan's GTR engine.

I think it's dishonest because it implies better engineering when, if the allegations are true, it's just a matter of more power.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Herms

I think it's dishonest because it implies better engineering when, if the allegations are true, it's just a matter of more power.

Mate it a well know fact that turbo engines can produce more hp than quoted and by as much as 10~12%. Most stock GTi produce near enough their quoted output at the wheels, why expect the GTR to be any different. By the way I don't hear to many 335i complaining about having more power than quoted, or any on this forum complaining about it either.

I know it's a BMW forums but come on, what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander too.

[swamp2]

I don't really think it has anything to do with producing stated power under all operating conditions, temperatures, altitudes, etc. NA engines are more affected with a drop in power by many conditions. If that was the case NA engines would all have to have WAAAAY more power than they do at sea level to appease all the folks in places like Denver, CO (altitude ~ 1 mi above sea level). I don't think a turbo is an excuse. As well I don't think any manufacturer should do it, I don't praise VW nor BMW for under rating. It is dishonest and as stated above it makes folks think other part and systems of the car like chassis, suspension, tires, drive system, software, etc. are all better than they are.

Are GTIs really producing crank figures at the wheels??

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Are GTIs really producing crank figures at the wheels??

Depending on where and when they are tested.... yeah.

[jaeS4]

I have a question for you guys, it seems like you guys would know a lot about this and forgive me if i sound clueless. I truly believe that the GTR is under-rated, but i've been having a "discussion" with a fellow Porsche forum member in 6speed, and he is convinced that it is not, due to a very low trapspeed in the 1/4 mile. Now he's making a valid point that in comparison with other cars with similar weight and "advertised" power such as the M6, the M6 traps a similar if not higher trapspeed. So his argument is, if the GTR is under-rated which i believe it is and i estimate it's around 540hp or more base on many dyno test that i've seen, should it trap higher than what it has been showing, which is around 115mph to 118mph. So base on those low trapspeeds, for him it proves that the GTR is not under-rated. In regards to the many dyno test results, i've seen anywhere from 430hp up to 460hp at the wheels. Now if you calculate from 15% to 20%, it would give it a range between 510hp to 570hp at the crank. He's also agruing that the GTR is only losing 10% at the wheels, which i really find that hard to believe. Most RWD cars loses anywhere from 12% to 15%, with the eception of some BMW's which tend to only lose around 10%, so i would think that AWD's would lose more than 10% or as little as 15%. Thanks for any info and knowledge provided.

[T Bone]

On GTR Power:

This is kinda how I would expect 2 500 hp, 3800 pound cars to behave (net of gearing)

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

On GTR Power:

This is kinda how I would expect 2 500 hp, 3800 pound cars to behave (net of gearing)

Dude, totally unfair that M6 has a huge roots supercharger and nitrous and was putting down 750+ hp.


















(sarcasm....)

Footie: do you think the same thing would happen between the 7:29 time car and this M6? Similarly would the same thing happen between this GT-R and a ZR-1?

[footie]

Originally Posted by Swamp2

Footie: do you think the same thing would happen between the 7:29 time car and this M6? Similarly would the same thing happen between this GT-R and a ZR-1?

Well now it all depends on whether you believe that M6 was stock or not. And just to prove that T-BONE's video wasn't the norm for all GTR vs M6 races here is another one with a different end result.

[TLud]

Originally Posted by footie

Well now it all depends on whether you believe that M6 was stock or not. And just to prove that T-BONE's video wasn't the norm for all GTR vs M6 races here is another one with a different end result.

That's just the problem. There is no norm for the GTR.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by TLud

That's just the problem. There is no norm for the GTR.

Agree on this but perhaps even more importantly the two runs show DRASTICALLY different effect. 1st = slight advantage GT-R, second = significant advantage GT-R. This indicates pretty bad control of the race and poor driving as well.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Agree on this but perhaps even more importantly the two runs show DRASTICALLY different effect. 1st = slight advantage GT-R, second = significant advantage GT-R. This indicates pretty bad control of the race and poor driving as well.

I don't disagree with your opinion, only highlighting the fact that for every video seen that shows one beat the other there will be an equal amount showing the opposite.

In fact go check out the M5Board videos where there were two identical F430 F1 at one of the events, the Black was a monster and pretty much beat everything else, but the identical red one got beat by quite a few cars. This shows the variation in performance of two identical cars, so why expect a GTR to not also show a similar variation from time to time.

Which brings us back to the 7:29 lap, why would one expect Nissan or GM or Dodge or any other manufacturer not to make sure the car isn't in tip top condition. The simple facts are that no two cars are identical and you have variations, some guys are lucky and get a very quick one while others don't .

Such is life.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

Which brings us back to the 7:29 lap, why would one expect Nissan or GM or Dodge or any other manufacturer not to make sure the car isn't in tip top condition. The simple facts are that no two cars are identical and you have variations, some guys are lucky and get a very quick one while others don't .

Such is life.

The only issue is the wide variance on the GTR.....

See the variance in 2 stock M6s....none.

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

The only issue is the wide variance on the GTR.....

See the variance in 2 stock M6s....none.

So are you disagreeing with the variation in the two F430 or are choosing to not comment.

And yes I saw the M6 vs M6, two very evenly matched cars.

[oneginee]

Originally Posted by TLud

That's just the problem. There is no norm for the GTR.

Disagreed. Nissan is quite detailed about the specs of the car. The norm for the GTR is whatever Nissan can achieve while still being held to these specs.

http://www.gtrnissan.com/specs.en.us.html#mechanical



the performance of manufactured part will follows a normal distribution. By taking only the best parts the manufacturer can assemble a special bred "stock" test car for the ring.

"each engine handcrafted by its own master technician in a clean room environment"
That technician may take much more time on that car and that's ok. But the tires have to be the Bridgestone RE070R or Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST as listed. Nobody ever said that the car had to be picked coming out of the assembly line RANDOMLY (i'm sure such an assumption would trigger laughs among manufacturers) . Porsche or BMW do the same thing and until there is proof of unfair modifications of that GT-R all I can conclude is:

1. The german Porsche do not have the same level of yield and manufacturing quality control as the japanese do
2. the GT-R design engineers outranked the germans
3. Porsche may have been conservatively "honnest" about their stock test car while Nissan approached this very agressively.