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

[footie]

Hands up who here believes that Porsche's recent comparison test dismissing Nissan's lap time was a true reflection of each cars respective performances on the ring, bearing in my that DR almost match their (Porsche) time with the GTR on a shitty, wet day but was 17 seconds slower than what they achieved in the GT2.

[Doc]

It was BS when others have seen Walter (Porsches Herr greatest test driver) do a 7min45s.. They and Nissan are losing the plot seriously

[watrob]

Porsche have been caught before for lying, they stated that there cars had a cetain amount of HP and infact they were down 50HP in England some years back.

So I think that all these big players will say and do anything and everthing to gain the upper hand!

[swamp2]

1. Not a very unbiased way to present a poll. You selectively choose evidence that pushes people to choose a particular side of the event. An unbiased approach would have ended the question right at the comma.

2. Don't vote on your own poll until well after the conclusion is made about the percentages are either way. Classic way to bias folks.

3. Despite the points about the poll is still not looking good in terms of most folks siding with your personal point of view on this.

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

1. Not a very unbiased way to present a poll. You selectively choose evidence that pushes people to choose a particular side of the event. An unbiased approach would have ended the question right at the comma.

2. Don't vote on your own poll until well after the conclusion is made about the percentages are either way. Classic way to bias folks.

3. Despite the points about the poll is still not looking good in terms of most folks siding with your personal point of view on this.

+1.

[footie]

swamp,

I would be very surprised if anyone didn't know my opinion on this by now, like it's not that I haven't commented on it. So to assume I am pushing people my way by posting isn't likely to happen.

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.

But it good to see that not everyone is buying into Porsche's stunt. The thing people are missing with their test is not that the GTR can't do the 7:29 but it's so much slower than the GT2 and it's that I am wanting people to post on.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I would be very surprised if anyone didn't know my opinion on this by now, like it's not that I haven't commented on it. So to assume I am pushing people my way by posting isn't likely to happen.

The phrasing of questions affect polls, period. This has been shown again and again by scientist and pollsters. Whether or not you are concerned about it, it is in quite poor style.

Originally Posted by footie

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.

How many folks that actually chose and purchased an M3 were seriously considering the GT-R? You think the number is much higher than it is, pretty much guaranteed. They are much less competitors that you believe as well. Lastly, the close in price thing was never accurate considering base cars at a different spec, and that is a fair comparison even if the cars are different. It is important for BMW to offer the M3, albeit a stripper, at a fairly low price. Now two large price increases later the similar price idea is simply out the window. Nissan is done losing money on every single GT-R the rolls off the line.

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

I would be very surprised if anyone didn't know my opinion on this by now, like it's not that I haven't commented on it. So to assume I am pushing people my way by posting isn't likely to happen.

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.

But it good to see that not everyone is buying into Porsche's stunt. The thing people are missing with their test is not that the GTR can't do the 7:29 but it's so much slower than the GT2 and it's that I am wanting people to post on.

I think the issue is that most of us trust Porsche due to their expertise on the ring and that they wouldn't purposely drive the GTR slower to prove a point. I think that the M3 v. GTR is becoming less of an issue lately and will continue to be due to the price hikes (The GTR will be around 90k for the '10 model), deletion of LC in 2010, and the warranty issues that are occurring lately.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Krueger///M3

I think the issue is that most of us trust Porsche due to their expertise on the ring and that they wouldn't purposely drive the GTR slower to prove a point. I think that the M3 v. GTR is becoming less of an issue lately and will continue to be due to the price hikes (The GTR will be around 90k for the '10 model), deletion of LC in 2010, and the warranty issues that are occurring lately.

I agree with your first point but only partially your second. The reason the M3 and GT-R are not really close competitors isn't due to changes or new knowledge about the car or its warranty. It is due to fundamental differences among the cars; the seating, 2+2 vs. 4, option for a Vert and 4 door/sedan, base price, preference for NA, availability of MT, AWD vs. RWD, preference for a European badge, styling or quality and admitted/well accepted competitors of each car (which are radically different!). Those things were all different when the GT-R came out and they are still the dominant differentiators IMO. Of course the effects you mention may also push a small number of folks leaning toward a GT-R (or fans of both) back toward a car like the M3.

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I agree with your first point but only partially your second. The reason the M3 and GT-R are not really close competitors isn't due to changes or new knowledge about the car or its warranty. It is due to fundamental differences among the cars; the seating, 2+2 vs. 4, option for a Vert and 4 door/sedan, base price, preference for NA, availability of MT, AWD vs. RWD, preference for a European badge, styling or quality and admitted/well accepted competitors of each car (which are radically different!). Those things were all different when the GT-R came out and they are still the dominant differentiators IMO. Of course the effects you mention may also push a small number of folks leaning toward a GT-R (or fans of both) back toward a car like the M3.

Totally agree, I just meant to say that those reasons are causing the GTR and M3 to be compared even less.

[swamp2]

Poll has been dead for about a week. I'd say the conclusion of the members herein who bothered to vote is abundantly clear, by over a 2-1 margin. Porsche is to be believed in their results and claims concerning GT-R N'Ring times. I guess the majority is with me on this one foot.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Poll has been dead for about a week. I'd say the conclusion of the members herein who bothered to vote is abundantly clear, by over a 2-1 margin. Porsche is to be believed in their results and claims concerning GT-R N'Ring times. I guess the majority is with me on this one foot.

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.

[jaeS4]

Unless Porsche can come up with any proof of their run in the GTR, i say it's completely BS. And if you go by with DR's test run of only 7:55 on the GTR and 7:49 on the GT2, does that mean it also proves that the 997TT couldn't possibly do 7:38 or 7:40 that Posche's claims. It almost seems like it's a matter of what you would like to believe or which car or car company you like more.

[TLud]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

Unless Porsche can come up with any proof of their run in the GTR, i say it's completely BS. And if you go by with DR's test run of only 7:55 on the GTR and 7:49 on the GT2, does that mean it also proves that the 997TT couldn't possibly do 7:38 or 7:40 that Posche's claims. It almost seems like it's a matter of what you would like to believe or which car or car company you like more.

I agree, but what kind of proof would satisfy you? I'm not sure what "proof" would show that Porsche drove the GTR to its full potential. The difference between driving at 9.5/10 and 10/10 would be nearly impossible to detect on a video, but could result in a big difference in total time on such a long course.

I think Porsche's test was BS, but I'm not voting for the second option in this poll because it's a loaded question aimed to give some legitimacy to Nissan's original test, which was also BS. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[!Xoible]

footie, swamp, please shut up. kthxbai

[KonigsTiger]

GT2 is a light car with lots and lots of power. It would be interesting to see what were the test conditions.

[shchow]

I think the fact that Porsche even went to the trouble to "verify" Nissan's results demonstrates that Porsche got "tilted" (to borrow from poker terminology).
You don't see them verifying ACR Viper times, or ZR-1 times, or Ferrari times.
This in itself is a win for Nissan, because Porsche comes off as a sore loser, IMHO.
I feel the track prowess of the GT-R has been scrutinized to the Nth degree, and the majority of opinion is that the Nissan is truly a track monster.

[footie]

TLud,

It is not meant as a loaded question and was not to give weight to Nissan's claimed time. Only an opinion that the times Porsche got for both cars tested supposibly on the same day does not stack up. And the reason being the amount of independently varified tests comparing all three cars (GTR, GT2 & 997tt).

[TLud]

Originally Posted by footie

TLud,

It is not meant as a loaded question and was not to give weight to Nissan's claimed time. Only an opinion that the times Porsche got for both cars tested supposibly on the same day does not stack up. And the reason being the amount of independently varified tests comparing all three cars (GTR, GT2 & 997tt).

footie, I'll take you at your word regarding your intentions in starting this poll, and I certainly agree that Porsche's times don't add up.

The whole thing really backfired for Porsche. Nissan is already shooting themselves in the foot by producing cars with suspiciously divergent and inconsistent test results, refusing to honor certain warranty claims, significantly raising prices, and now removing LC. Porsche should have just remained on the sideline and let consumers put two and two together.

This article sums it all up pretty nicely, including the silliness of the bench-racing epidemic that has struck the internet and fuels this type of behavior from manufacturers.

[jaeS4]

Originally Posted by TLud

I agree, but what kind of proof would satisfy you? I'm not sure what "proof" would show that Porsche drove the GTR to its full potential. The difference between driving at 9.5/10 and 10/10 would be nearly impossible to detect on a video, but could result in a big difference in total time on such a long course.

I think Porsche's test was BS, but I'm not voting for the second option in this poll because it's a loaded question aimed to give some legitimacy to Nissan's original test, which was also BS. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

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.

[footie]

Originally Posted by TLud

footie, I'll take you at your word regarding your intentions in starting this poll, and I certainly agree that Porsche's times don't add up.

Well thank-you for that.

Certain people feel I have a hidden agenda regarding the GTR but that isn't the case. I just wanted to see how many people were sucked into by this Porsche BS, maybe because they just can't get their heads round the idea of Nissan being able to build a better/quicker car than Porsche or most probably the idea of a Nissan that is so much quicker than the equally priced M3 makes them feel cheated.

Originally Posted by TLud

The whole thing really backfired for Porsche. Nissan is already shooting themselves in the foot by producing cars with suspiciously divergent and inconsistent test results, refusing to honor certain warranty claims, significantly raising prices, and now removing LC. Porsche should have just remained on the sideline and let consumers put two and two together.

I already said I felt Porsche should have said nothing and let their products do the talking against the GTR but their hand was forced by the numerous independent comparison tests that proved the GTR was easily quicker than the Turbo and in most cases only marginally slower than the GT2 while sometimes proving to be quicker as well.

I believe DR's test is a truer reflection of both cars abilities, if both cars were equally matched with the desired rubber the GT2 would have been slightly quicker, it's the kind of results that is shown with other tests else where. The problem with the Porsche test is the margin of the win against the Turbo, never mind the GT2. Both Porsche cars all but equalled their all time best runs, this proves that on that day track conditions were damn near perfect but their GTR could only muster an extra 2 seconds over the DR run on a wet, cold November morning.

I haven't dodge the question of the GTR's true time, I have openly stated that I think the most likely time for the car is somewhere between the low 7:3x and 7:40 because I believe it was a one-off this 7:29 lap. Heaven knows how many laps were required to achieve this magical one and I reckon if you had seen Nissan's data the true average would be closer to the 7:38 than the 7:29. But none of this matter or gets pass the fact that the times Porsche put forward as proof positive are total BS.

I rest my case.

[footie]

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.

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.