2010 GTR loses launch control

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Doc

I need to get some of those mounts dude if it gives me 9 secs of confidence

Do you have a reading disability? The difference between the 7:38 and 7:29 times has been well documented (and documented, and documented...). Engine/driveline mounts may or may not have been a factor of any significance, but weather and track conditions certainly were.

Originally Posted by Doc

Lets face facts - If Walther Rohrl cant match those times with an off the shelf car then nobody can. Nissan lied - accept it .. lets move on. The GTR is an awesome car and it shoots way above its price point but its not the supercar baiter everyone was led to believe. The V spec is another story though

OK, you start the paragraph with "Let's face facts...", then supply no facts. How about this: The last evidence anyone has to look at is a direct competition with the GT2, in which the GTR finished seven seconds behind - five seconds of which are attributable to the tires. The actual times were well off what hired factory assassins have been able to put up, apparently due to less than optimal conditions and a second-tier driver who was scared to death. Assuming a two-second advantage to the Porsche, that puts the GTR in the 7:33 range, firmly in supercar territory, and of course well within spec in regard to the 7:29 time. It also puts the GTR comfortably ahead of the standard 911 Turbo, which is what Nissan said their goal was, and is arguably why they spent months testing and tuning the car at the 'Ring prior to going into production.

There's more, but I also can fully understand the viewpoint that the 7:29 is literally unbelievable. How about this? I haven't been actually trying to convince you to change your mind, but simply have supplied some data points. I'm comfy with you feeling the way you do, so how about you stop trying to inflict your viewpoint on me with an effort toward conversion?

Originally Posted by Doc

The way they handled this LC affair is what puts a sour aftertaste on an amazing piece of engineering and thats why all car fans and owners are upset. They fucked up by putting it there in the first place and not putting any sort of limiter, like BMW and Porsche, to protect the tranny. Now they crying foul and pulling warrantees. Thats BS regardless of whether a guy did 10 launches or 1000 launches. They should sort out the few cars that are damaged and do a recall to introduce a limiter off sorts in good faith. Killing off LC completely just pulls the rug from under all new owners.

I personally am completely OK with how Nissan has handled this, but wouldn't presume to tell you you're wrong. These are opinions, after all.

Of course, it's been a continued source of amusement for me that the BMW faithful get so exercised about a Nissan. That's obviously because the GTR is an M3 killer at what used to be very similar pricing, but still, literally hundreds of posts? Makes me grin.

Bruce

[Dr. Dre]

This is an amazing forum. You guys are so biased it's unbelievable. I'm sure a lot of you guys came from e46 m3. You guys diss the Nissan but can we say smg. It's not if it will fail but when. What about early s54 failure. You guys forget that BMW initially denied warranties on those failed motors. Supposed bad bearings. Give me a break. What about VANOS? Again, it's not if it will fail but when. Let's not forget the rear floor on the e46's falling out.

I'm a rep in the auto industry. Let's see what happens when e92's get some miles and they are driven hard. Let's see what BMW does with regards to the warranty.

If you have an all wheel drive car you don't get any wheel spin your going to put a lot of energy into the drive train. Sh*t smg transmission are failing left and right on rwd cars.

This is bias is something that i've seen on a lot of forums. Keep an open mind. Don't be mad because the Nissan will beat the M3 in every category. At least nissan stepped up. what about the fact that BMW has killed the CSL version of the car but the continue to make the hideous X6.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Dre

This is an amazing forum. You guys are so biased it's unbelievable. I'm sure a lot of you guys came from e46 m3. You guys diss the Nissan but can we say smg. It's not if it will fail but when. What about early s54 failure. You guys forget that BMW initially denied warranties on those failed motors. Supposed bad bearings. Give me a break. What about VANOS? Again, it's not if it will fail but when. Let's not forget the rear floor on the e46's falling out.

I'm a rep in the auto industry. Let's see what happens when e92's get some miles and they are driven hard. Let's see what BMW does with regards to the warranty.

If you have an all wheel drive car you don't get any wheel spin your going to put a lot of energy into the drive train. Sh*t smg transmission are failing left and right on rwd cars.

This is bias is something that i've seen on a lot of forums. Keep an open mind. Don't be mad because the Nissan will beat the M3 in every category. At least nissan stepped up. what about the fact that BMW has killed the CSL version of the car but the continue to make the hideous X6.

^+1.

I totally agree with everything you wrote. I remember friends with earlier M3 talking about the engine problems and how BMW were not recalling all of them but only repairing the failures as they appeared. It made me wonder what would happen the rest once out of warranty. I also knew about the smg failures but I though BMW fixed those, though did they not change the LC on M5/6 in the US. These again shows that even BMW have to pull in the reigns from time to time.

It's said among the 'car industry' that BMW do 3/4 of the research and development work themselves and the final 1/4 is done by their customers, a bit harsh as I would reckon all are as bad as each other.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by footie

Wrong on so many counts.

1# It was not Walter driving the Nissan GTR is that comparison test conducted by Porsche which I might add I have no faith in.

2# Bruce was only saying that the mounts might have contributed to the 9 second improvement, not that it was the sole factor. That is pure speculation.

But he is correct that added confidence will improve your time considerably, think of lack of confidence as your first time at a new track and then think of added confidence as if you have covered 30 laps, you now know the course and how the car behaves. Your times have dropped considerably but the car hasn't changed one single bit.

P.S.
I don't know at what revs the system dumps the clutch in LC mode, if it was excessively high then that would put undue stress on everything but was probably the only way of achieving the desired times. I think it would have been better to lower the revs and save face but then they maybe thought that removing it was safer because there is always a software write around to increase it again and we all know how much some people love to modify their cars regardless of the warranty.

I don't agree with not covering the claims against them but if someone had clearly abused the thing to the extent that some clearly did I wouldn't want a repeat which would probably happen. After all he wouldn't be out of pocket and wouldn't care to repeat the exercise, maybe they should happen taken the car back and removed the LC system altogether.

1)Walter Rohrl did drive the GTR and his best time was a 7min45s - I googled it before I posted.
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/107229-ri...not-stock.html
Check post number 3 in the above link

2)I understand what a difference confidence can instill on a track like the ring, its all speculation though and it was more likely a chip tune to bump up the horses than bushes - like they did before in the 90s- sure I am pulling my thumb out my ass but Nissan are old cheats and its a dark horse that will stay with them forever.

WRT the warranty claim - if using a feature that the Manufacturer put there in the first place damages a car, the obligation is on the Manufacturer. A page in a book does not cover you legally as a Manufacturer without being signed and acknowledged by the owner during the time of sale. Heck man, what happens when the salesman shows you how to use it in the showroom when you fetch your car and tells you "Let her rip man- we tested it and its A-OK". What is the definition of abuse? 3 launches in a row? 30 launches? 100 launches? If the car was modified to override any safeguards then its obviously the owners fault. Autocar had similar issues when they got their hands on one of the first examples. Nissan should have taken note then before they launched the GTR in the USA. Its a legal matter really- let the lawyers fight it out.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Dr. Dre

This is an amazing forum. You guys are so biased it's unbelievable. I'm sure a lot of you guys came from e46 m3. You guys diss the Nissan but can we say smg. It's not if it will fail but when. What about early s54 failure. You guys forget that BMW initially denied warranties on those failed motors. Supposed bad bearings. Give me a break. What about VANOS? Again, it's not if it will fail but when. Let's not forget the rear floor on the e46's falling out.

I'm a rep in the auto industry. Let's see what happens when e92's get some miles and they are driven hard. Let's see what BMW does with regards to the warranty.

If you have an all wheel drive car you don't get any wheel spin your going to put a lot of energy into the drive train. Sh*t smg transmission are failing left and right on rwd cars.

This is bias is something that i've seen on a lot of forums. Keep an open mind. Don't be mad because the Nissan will beat the M3 in every category. At least nissan stepped up. what about the fact that BMW has killed the CSL version of the car but the continue to make the hideous X6.

BMW fucked up big time and we wont stay silent about it. Check the forums about how pissed we all were that they killed the CSL. GTR is an awesome car and no doubt it kills a std E92 M3. Nissan just keep putting their foot in the mouth about this car. Do you think that deleting Launch control is stepping up? Its more an admission of guilt than anything else. What about their bullshit ring story - that seriously pisses me off. Its faster than a 997 turbo- fair enough, but faster than a Zonda, 430 scuderia, Carrera Gt? BS and it stinks. I still love it though and have ordered one. It will be one of the first examples locally and I will modify it but wont be running to Nissan for warranty issues when something breaks. Lets pray that they get the metallurgy right for the 09 GTR gearbox.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Do you have a reading disability? The difference between the 7:38 and 7:29 times has been well documented (and documented, and documented...). Engine/driveline mounts may or may not have been a factor of any significance, but weather and track conditions certainly were.



OK, you start the paragraph with "Let's face facts...", then supply no facts. How about this: The last evidence anyone has to look at is a direct competition with the GT2, in which the GTR finished seven seconds behind - five seconds of which are attributable to the tires. The actual times were well off what hired factory assassins have been able to put up, apparently due to less than optimal conditions and a second-tier driver who was scared to death. Assuming a two-second advantage to the Porsche, that puts the GTR in the 7:33 range, firmly in supercar territory, and of course well within spec in regard to the 7:29 time. It also puts the GTR comfortably ahead of the standard 911 Turbo, which is what Nissan said their goal was, and is arguably why they spent months testing and tuning the car at the 'Ring prior to going into production.

There's more, but I also can fully understand the viewpoint that the 7:29 is literally unbelievable. How about this? I haven't been actually trying to convince you to change your mind, but simply have supplied some data points. I'm comfy with you feeling the way you do, so how about you stop trying to inflict your viewpoint on me with an effort toward conversion?



I personally am completely OK with how Nissan has handled this, but wouldn't presume to tell you you're wrong. These are opinions, after all.

Of course, it's been a continued source of amusement for me that the BMW faithful get so exercised about a Nissan. That's obviously because the GTR is an M3 killer at what used to be very similar pricing, but still, literally hundreds of posts? Makes me grin.

Bruce

I probably do have a reading disability, thats why it took me 6 years to get through college..Oh WAIT a sec.. For fucks sake it took me 6 years coz I am a DOCTOR! I am not the only one guilty of thumb sucking here. All those in favor of Nissan and their BS ring time have yet to come up with anything close to a real lap of 7min30s. All we hear is how much time this little mod adds and how much more the dunlops are worth and the track was damp and leaves fell into the intake and the driver was scared and whiny whiny whiny. Lets see some times guys. Claiming 7min29s? - thats epic in a car weighing almost 2 tons not running slicks. Put up or shut up is all I am saying. I agree its faster than a 997 turbo but beating a GT2, Zonda, Carrera GT? The truth will prevail soon enough once the rain clears over the ring and Horst von Sauma gets a lap in the Euro 2009 spec GTR with Dunlops worth 5 secs and bushes worth 9 secs (My money is on 7min45s which is not too shabby really)

PS I thought its common knowledge that Walter did a 7min45s in the GTR - thats why I said lets face facts. Check the link above for proof
PSS I love the GTR.. thats why I am on the waiting list for one. Its in another league compared to an M3, not even a 997 turbo can run it around a track - thats a fact

[footie]

Originally Posted by Doc

1)Walther Rohrl did drive the GTR and his best time was a 7min45s - I googled it before I posted.

Actually I also went on to google before I wrote that Walter hadn't driven the GTR so I would love to read that article if you could provide a link.

Also 9 seconds improvement through slight mods isn't unheard of, hack even Walter improved his time in the Carrera GT by 8 seconds without any modifications. Point being is that such is the length and variation on each corner of the ring that it's very possible for the very same GTR that posted the original 7:38 lap could have been the one that posted the 7:29. I understand Porsche's position, it's world was ripped apart by the GTR. Here was a car that at less than half the price was even quicker than it's almost top model and it proved how over priced their cars were.

Why does everyone on this forum feel that Nissan has had to cheat to prove it's worth, just look at every other comparison test where the GTR has been put up against the competition, be it the GT2, the Gallardo LP560 or the 997Turbo. In almost every test the GTR has proved worthy of it's title and it's position as an equal to all others, so why cheat at the ring when all other tests are proving so positive.

The norm is for each new model to dramatically improve it lap time over the last. The 996 GT2 lapped in 7:46 and the 997 GT2 in 7:32 an improvement of 14s, likewise the M3 does similar, as does the RS4. So why believe Nissan aren't capable of such improvements that all other companies seem to do on a regular bases.

I personally find it pitiful at everyone from Porsche to BMW M3 owners use this disbelief as the only way make them feel better about their own decisions, in Porsche's case their decision to price their cars that high and M3 owners in their decision to pick the M3 over the much more talented GTR.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Doc

I am not the only one guilty of thumb sucking here. All those in favor of Nissan and their BS ring time have yet to come up with anything close to a real lap of 7min30s. All we hear is how much time this little mod adds and how much more the dunlops are worth and the track was damp and leaves fell into the intake and the driver was scared and whiny whiny whiny. Lets see some times guys. Claiming 7min29s? - thats epic in a car weighing almost 2 tons not running slicks. Put up or shut up is all I am saying. I agree its faster than a 997 turbo but beating a GT2, Zonda, Carrera GT? The truth will prevail soon enough once the rain clears over the ring and Horst von Sauma gets a lap in the Euro 2009 spec GTR with Dunlops worth 5 secs and bushes worth 9 secs

PS I love the GTR.. thats why I am on the waiting list for one. Its in another league compared to an M3, not even a 997 turbo can run it around a track - thats a fact

Just in case you didn't know. The GTR is quicker around Silverstone than both the GT2 and the Gallardo LP560, and in both cases the GTR was over 10 mph slower on Hanger straight. Now what does that not say about it's handling in the corners of which there is a shit load on the Nurburgring.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by footie

Actually I also went on to google before I wrote that Walter hadn't driven the GTR so I would love to read that article if you could provide a link.

Also 9 seconds improvement through slight mods isn't unheard of, hack even Walter improved his time in the Carrera GT by 8 seconds without any modifications. Point being is that such is the length and variation on each corner of the ring that it's very possible for the very same GTR that posted the original 7:38 lap could have been the one that posted the 7:29. I understand Porsche's position, it's world was ripped apart by the GTR. Here was a car that at less than half the price was even quicker than it's almost top model and it proved how over priced their cars were.

Why does everyone on this forum feel that Nissan has had to cheat to prove it's worth, just look at every other comparison test where the GTR has been put up against the competition, be it the GT2, the Gallardo LP560 or the 997Turbo. In almost every test the GTR has proved worthy of it's title and it's position as an equal to all others, so why cheat at the ring when all other tests are proving so positive.

The norm is for each new model to dramatically improve it lap time over the last. The 996 GT2 lapped in 7:46 and the 997 GT2 in 7:32 an improvement of 14s, likewise the M3 does similar, as does the RS4. So why believe Nissan aren't capable of such improvements that all other companies seem to do on a regular bases.

I personally find it pitiful at everyone from Porsche to BMW M3 owners use this disbelief as the only way make them feel better about their own decisions, in Porsche's case their decision to price their cars that high and M3 owners in their decision to pick the M3 over the much more talented GTR.

I have put up a link. I do not care about what time the GTR does around the ring. I did not care what time the E92 M3 did when I bought it. The problem I have is that Nissan have used their ring claims in their aggressive marketing campaign without any real proof, except a video not showing much of the car running the times or having an outside party to confirm them. Thats the big problem I have. The GTR is a fast car and on certain tracks its going to have an advantage over its competitors no doubt. The track in question here is the Nurburgring and its pretty obvious to me that they cheated or they lied about the car being stock thinking that the whole world is going to bow down to the shrine of GTR

It should be called FQ GTR, but it aint doing 7min29s stock - no fucking ways man

[Doc]

Here is a quote from the GTR forum :

"I suggest you read the full thread, particularly this comment:

Just to add a bit towards your post dr S. The aforementioned rallye star during one of the recent nurburgring 24hrs 30-45s a lap quicker than even the manthey car when heavy fog descended on the Eifel. He knows the place very very well.

I dropped him an email and he sent me this and asked me to post it onto the discussion:

"Hi Adam,
Its funny how fast information goes around the world! I drove the Nissan GTR yesterday for KW with the KW clubsport and with the original suspension. All other parts were stock and the weight was original! Due to the fact, that there where some passing manouvers and 2 small mistakes in my line, the theoretical best time, calculated from my best sectors (with data logger), was a 7.46. ( a real lap was 7,49)
So I think, it is not possible, to go faster, when W.Röhrl and Chr.Menzel also where not able to go under 7.45!
The secret source, who watched the test of the 3 cars is not so secret: He owns a guest house in Nürbrug and was there at the test and watched everything. I spoke to him 2 days ago and it was true that tha car was far away from stock, that means power, sound, tyres, exhaust, weight!
But anyway the Nissan GTR is fast also in stock outfit and fun to drive. Only when acclerating it would need more power to the rear, to kill the understeer. Under braking conditions it steers very good into corners! Sometimes to much, but then it is even more fun!
If You want, You can post that in the internet! Source: Wolf!
Danke und Viele Grüße"


I am a big fan of the GTR, I am a little saddened that Nissan have cheated which does detract hugely from the cars very impressive performance. (7:45 full laps is astonishing for such a heavy car).

best,
adam


The poster Adam is a friend of mine who is very credible in that he lives in Nurburg and works for a local race/instruction team. He also drives his 997 GT3RS there almost every day, so knows most people."

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Doc

I probably do have a reading disability, thats why it took me 6 years to get through college..Oh WAIT a sec.. For fucks sake it took me 6 years coz I am a DOCTOR!

Oh. So you're a DOCTOR with a reading disability. Chilling thought.

Originally Posted by Doc

I am not the only one guilty of thumb sucking here. All those in favor of Nissan and their BS ring time have yet to come up with anything close to a real lap of 7min30s.

Thumb sucking? I venture to guess that the vast majority of those who believe Nissan don't actually own a GTR - just like the vast majority of those who don't believe Nissan.

Originally Posted by Doc

...I agree its faster than a 997 turbo but beating a GT2, Zonda, Carrera GT?

So it's quicker than a 7:38, but slower than a 7:29? Well, I guess I need to bow to your superior knowledge of the car and how it works.

Originally Posted by Doc

PS I thought its common knowledge that Walter did a 7min45s in the GTR - thats why I said lets face facts. Check the link above for proof...

Wait a minute. Porsche says Rohrl wasn't the driver, and that 7:54 was the time - and you come up with a half-ass reference that says Porsche is lying? Great. Now we have a DOCTOR with not only a reading disability, but also crippled logic and judgement.

Originally Posted by Doc

PSS I love the GTR.. thats why I am on the waiting list for one. Its in another league compared to an M3, not even a 997 turbo can run it around a track - thats a fact

So let's get down to cases. You're sure the GTR can knock off the 997 Turbo on track, as is everyone else who's ever done a direct comparison except Porsche. So what's the real, according-to-a-DOCTOR time?

7:37? 7:30? 7:33? 7:35? Anything below 7:38 will do, so please let me know what your superior knowledge from afar tells you.

Bruce

PS - I am not a fan of the car and would trade it away if someone gave me one, but absolutely love the fact that it's a game changer.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Oh. So you're a DOCTOR with a reading disability. Chilling thought.



Thumb sucking? I venture to guess that the vast majority of those who believe Nissan don't actually own a GTR - just like the vast majority of those who don't believe Nissan.



So it's quicker than a 7:38, but slower than a 7:29? Well, I guess I need to bow to your superior knowledge of the car and how it works.



Wait a minute. Porsche says Rohrl wasn't the driver, and that 7:54 was the time - and you come up with a half-ass reference that says Porsche is lying? Great. Now we have a DOCTOR with not only a reading disability, but also crippled logic and judgement.



So let's get down to cases. You're sure the GTR can knock off the 997 Turbo on track, as is everyone else who's ever done a direct comparison except Porsche. So what's the real, according-to-a-DOCTOR time?

7:37? 7:30? 7:33? 7:35? Anything below 7:38 will do, so please let me know what your superior knowledge from afar tells you.

Bruce

PS - I am not a fan of the car and would trade it away if someone gave me one, but absolutely love the fact that it's a game changer.

You make me laugh .. Aint the internet wonderful? Where u can get personal with a stranger since you sitting miles away behind a screen and keyboard?

I am not a Porsche camp defender but when they say their cars do times on the ring, Horst has gotten close or matched their times. Them commenting on others cars though is a different story
Nissan have an infamous reputation of being fucking liars so when people who have experience driving the ring are doing 7min45s in std GTR then Nissan have some explaining to do.(or may be not since we knew all along...)
I am still waiting for Sport Auto to do their test and then we will see what the GTR is really worth on the ring.
If it does get below 7min45 with Horst von Sauma behind the wheel(the same man who did 7min32.something in a GT2) then I will accept all u have said Bruce but till that time comes you in a losing camp.. or simply are a loser.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Doc

You make me laugh .. Aint the internet wonderful? Where u can get personal with a stranger since you sitting miles away behind a screen and keyboard?

Y'know, I have a fair amount of respect for anyone who has the capability and sheer grit to make it through the system and become a doctor, but when someone announces (pretty much out of the blue) from behind a screen and keyboard that "I am a DOCTOR!", my I'm-in-the-presence-of-a-jerk meter just pegs. If we were in the same room and you made such an out of the blue announcement, I'd call you a jerk right then and there.

Originally Posted by Doc

...If it does get below 7min45 with Horst von Sauma behind the wheel(the same man who did 7min32.something in a GT2) then I will accept all u have said Bruce but till that time comes you in a losing camp.. or simply are a loser.

So far in my life, I seem to be well over .500 on the wins and losses front, but I admit that's a self-assessment, and one can never discount luck.

But hey, we agree that the car is faster than a 997 Turbo, so where between 7:30 and 7:37 would you put it? I'd just like to know whether we're disagreeing to the amount of one second, or as many as eight seconds?

Bruce

[Doc]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Y'know, I have a fair amount of respect for anyone who has the capability and sheer grit to make it through the system and become a doctor, but when someone announces (pretty much out of the blue) from behind a screen and keyboard that "I am a DOCTOR!", my I'm-in-the-presence-of-a-jerk meter just pegs. If we were in the same room and you made such an out of the blue announcement, I'd call you a jerk right then and there.



So far in my life, I seem to be well over .500 on the wins and losses front, but I admit that's a self-assessment, and one can never discount luck.

But hey, we agree that the car is faster than a 997 Turbo, so where between 7:30 and 7:37 would you put it? I'd just like to know whether we're disagreeing to the amount of one second, or as many as eight seconds?

Bruce

Sorry dude.. You got personal from the get go saying I had a reading disability remember? Thats being a jerk..

Trust me.. People think I am a classy grease monkey when they meet me they fall of there chairs when they later find out what my hands actually do

Its not going to get close to 7min 38s unfortunately and I don't think a 997 turbo is that fast either. Porsche are panicking and putting a time out to save face, which is as bad as Nissan lying.. meaning I dont think that the 997T that set that time is the same as the one you can drive off the showroom floor

Sport Auto don't disappoint - they will have stock GTR with stock 997 turbo running same sunny day, same driver, same fuel. Bets?.. i stand by my initial statement GTR -will be about 7m 45s give or take a second or two

[ismelllikepoop]

yeah i like to pat myself on the back and tell me how great i am too

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I personally find it pitiful at everyone from Porsche to BMW M3 owners use this disbelief as the only way make them feel better about their own decisions, in Porsche's case their decision to price their cars that high and M3 owners in their decision to pick the M3 over the much more talented GTR.

I find it pitiful that the rank and file defenders of Nissan believe that anyone who expresses a shred of doubt about the GT-R Ring times or about the car in general are automatically driveling, drugged, blind fan boys of elitist German car brands. It really doesn't matter one iota what the brand of the car that ran a 7:29 at the quoted weight and power of the GT-R - the skepticism would be abound. You need to face it foot, many of us simply strive for consistency in the world, despite all brand preferences.

Not to mention most reasonable defenders of the GT-R time (yourself included) readily admit the car that did that time likely had at least 530 hp. Making the call as to whether this was cheating or dishonesty, given the factory specification of 480 hp, remains a personal decision for each of us.

Originally Posted by Doc

I am still waiting for Sport Auto to do their test and then we will see what the GTR is really worth on the ring.

Horst had his shot with a showroom GT-R. He made a 7:50 with a track wet in some portions.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I find it pitiful that the rank and file defenders of Nissan believe that anyone who expresses a shred of doubt about the GT-R Ring times or about the car in general are automatically driveling, drugged, blind fan boys of elitist German car brands. It really doesn't matter one iota what the brand of the car that ran a 7:29 at the quoted weight and power of the GT-R - the skepticism would be abound. You need to face it foot, many of us simply strive for consistency in the world, despite all brand preferences.

Not to mention most reasonable defenders of the GT-R time (yourself included) readily admit the car that did that time likely had at least 530 hp. Making the call as to whether this was cheating or dishonesty, given the factory specification of 480 hp, remains a personal decision for each of us.



Horst had his shot with a showroom GT-R. He made a 7:50 with a track wet in some portions.

Well said Swamp2 Everyone that has taken std GTRs to the Ring have had bad luck with the weather. Sport Auto said they would retest new spec in the new year when conditions are perfect.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

yeah i like to pat myself on the back and tell me how great i am too

We all need to sometimes no matter what we smell like

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I find it pitiful that the rank and file defenders of Nissan believe that anyone who expresses a shred of doubt about the GT-R Ring times or about the car in general are automatically driveling, drugged, blind fan boys of elitist German car brands. It really doesn't matter one iota what the brand of the car that ran a 7:29 at the quoted weight and power of the GT-R - the skepticism would be abound. You need to face it foot, many of us simply strive for consistency in the world, despite all brand preferences.

Not to mention most reasonable defenders of the GT-R time (yourself included) readily admit the car that did that time likely had at least 530 hp. Making the call as to whether this was cheating or dishonesty, given the factory specification of 480 hp, remains a personal decision for each of us.

I would be the first to admit that I am defending the GTR time and this is based on logic and being level headed. If the car is as quicker if not quicker than almost all of the other cars around the 7:30~32 mark then why assume that it's only capable of a 7:40~7:55 time with the latter being Porsche's suggestion we should all take. Look at the bare fact, the Nurburgring is a very fast track but with most corners cover in either 2nd or 3rd gear and the occasional 4th gear corner. This tracks average speed is similar to Silverstone's only average per car tested and has a similar range of corners, on this track the GTR is quicker than both the GT2 and LP560 but posts a slower peak speed of 10mph less. Littered all round this course is end of straight speeds where the GTR is slower but it's makes up for it in the corners, it's similar on the ring where I might add there is a hack of a lot more corners to make up time.

Next lets go over the actual output of the GTR, it has been admitted to me by a Nissan representative that the true figure is approx. 10% more than quoted and this then brings all the theory and maths work to a point where though still out side the normal expectations of the car it is still not much further away from Audi's own S3 regression figures.

We can all view this excessive increase in actual power as cheating, but as they are all at it we can not really blame Nissan for going with the flow because that would have placed them at a disadvantage just for taking the moral high ground.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Horst had his shot with a showroom GT-R. He made a 7:50 with a track wet in some portions.

I am expecting Horst to improve this next time out, weather permitting but as Horst doesn't always perform as well as expected, he's a full 9 seconds slower than Audi's test driver in the RS4, similar with the R8 and other exotics we can only guess as to the true potential of any given car in his hands.

I look at Driver Republic's test of both the GTR and the GT2 and see things different to yourself and maybe others here. I see a real possibility that a stock GTR could have approached the time Nissan recorded, be it 3~4 seconds out but that could be made up in production variations or a different suspension setup.

My only hope is that Nissan bring the GTR V-spec to the ring and let all comers in to see it's final testing and weight it, dyno it and be as open as possible. Things I might add that all of them need do.

[southlight]

I can't believe that the 7:59 for an RS4 is being brought up again. Good bye, basis for discussion...


Best regards, south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

I can't believe that the 7:59 for an RS4 is being brought up again. Good bye, basis for discussion...


Best regards, south

OK,

I was only highlighting the fact that Horst isn't always as quick as test drivers. The reason I choose the RS4 is because the difference was greater than most other, usually it's between 6~4 seconds but it's been as high as 9 seconds based on the data available. Maybe when more manufacturers post their own times we will see more differences like this.

I just find it absurd that everyone on this site jumps on Porsche's bandwagon and believe that in their hands the GTR is only capable of 7:55, but on that same day their own cars all but matched their best efforts and yet Chris from DR couldn't get close to the GT2's time but almost repeated the GTR time and in piss poor conditions.

You of all people are very level headed, do you honest think Porsche's own test wasn't at all biased towards their own products.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

OK,

I was only highlighting the fact that Horst isn't always as quick as test drivers. The reason I choose the RS4 is because the difference was greater than most other, usually it's between 6~4 seconds but it's been as high as 9 seconds based on the data available. Maybe when more manufacturers post their own times we will see more differences like this.

I just find it absurd that everyone on this site jumps on Porsche's bandwagon and believe that in their hands the GTR is only capable of 7:55, but on that same day their own cars all but matched their best efforts and yet Chris from DR couldn't get close to the GT2's time but almost repeated the GTR time and in piss poor conditions.

You of all people are very level headed, do you honest think Porsche's own test wasn't at all biased towards their own products.

Seriously, I don't know what to make out of the Porsche statement. On the one hand it would be green not to think they're biased towards their own cars, on the other hand however I can't believe Porsche would make such an gross statement without any matter to it. All these comparisons and thus the discussion based on these comparisons, tests and impressions are quite pointless as it's like apples and oranges. The most meaningful result would be waiting for Sportauto Supertest, but the points you made (which per se are indeed valid) already show that only an sensational Ring time of the GTR could stop all this. In case HvS only achieves a 7:45 (or even slower) you or anybody else will make the point of him being slower than possible. So there's no way this discussion will ever end, no matter what's the result. This makes me believe we could stop right here and now as the only true result is already known:

οἴδα οὐκ εἰδώς


Best regards, south