BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
GetBMWParts
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-01-2008, 10:22 AM   #23
jaeS4
Private
5
Rep
72
Posts

 
Drives: s4
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: nyc

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
OK, let me answer that debate quite easily. Which car would you expect a Porsche chassis engineer/tester to be quickest in?

The person knows the capabilities of the Porsche car inside out, were as the Nissan is an unknown quantity so to speak. I bet if he/she was at the development stage of the GTR and seen it through to production the likelihood would be that this person would be quicker in the GTR instead of the Porsche.

As for their time of 7:54, well that is absurd, the sheer mathematics of this would have the GTR quicker when it's trick awd system is taken into account. Every other roadtest which has compared all of these cars has shown the Nissan to be quicker, maybe only slightly so with the GT2 but with the Turbo the gap is enough to place it into a league above.

This one is for swamp,

I was down at the local Nissan dealer talking about the availability of the GTR and generally showing a bit of interest to see what I could learn. I asked the question about output and how it seem to be defying the laws of physics with it's incredible acceleration compared to other cars like the 997 Turbo (which they all use as a reference) and his reply was that the figures were indeed above the 500hp mark. The reason given was to make sure that regardless of the temperature and altitude the car would always guarantee it's quoted figure.

This sounds very reasonable to me as an explanation and with what I know of turbo engines and how temperature and air density affect their performance I am in agreement with this.
This is what bothers me a little bit about this, the fact that the test came from a competitor and making direct accusations without any vital proof, at least not yet. The test or proof should come from an independent non-bias party, and test both cars in The Ring and setttle this once and for all. I think we can all agree that the GTR is under-rated, so let's just see how much quicker it really is compare to the 997TT in The Ring. We have seen in several comparison test between the GTR and 997TT from several magazine that the GTR is quicker in acceleration, so i think it's safe to say that the GTR is better on those aspect.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 10:44 AM   #24
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
154
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
I'm pretty sure EVO and Autocar used a customer's car which he had imported from Japan to do their early comparison test and it performed the exact same as every other test so far (i.e beat everything else).

When you resort to running down someone elses product I think you have failed to win the argument. I honestly thought better of Porsche than this.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 11:18 AM   #25
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
143
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

I will reserve my opinion until Autosport posts the GTR numbers.

BTW, I started a thread on the whoring of Nordscheilfe.....it is playing out in spades now.

And for the Caddy lovers who though John Heinracy was just an ordinary engineer when he cracked 8:00 in the new CTS-V.... Watch this video...

**************************car-videos-08...vette-ZR-1.htm
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 11:21 AM   #26
Herms
First Lieutenant
10
Rep
392
Posts

 
Drives: '11 Audi S4; '10 Mini Cooper S
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LA. CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC View Post
This is old news. It isn't just Porsche making these claims.

It is widely known that both Nissan and GM are not exactly telling the whole truth about their laps, with the GT-R and ZR-1.
just read a piece somewhere discussing how there's no standard to how these times are measured to begin with, so it's not clear that comparisons are valid unless it's the same source testing each car.
__________________
'07 e92 335 (sold)
'08 e90 M3 (sold)
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 02:03 PM   #27
ismelllikepoop
First Lieutenant
4
Rep
325
Posts

 
Drives: m3
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pooptown

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
I'm pretty sure EVO and Autocar used a customer's car which he had imported from Japan to do their early comparison test and it performed the exact same as every other test so far (i.e beat everything else).

When you resort to running down someone elses product I think you have failed to win the argument. I honestly thought better of Porsche than this.
I'm reminded of when the 350z came out, and everyone said it was a world-beater for 30k. once the hoopla died down it was a solid car and that was pretty much it. i'd be suspicious too with a 70k car not just beating all comers but destroying anything within 20k. I dont get why no one is checking standard customer models for the boost to see if it's been tweaked at all, like the 335 edmunds tested had like double the boost it was supposed to have and posted ridiculous numbers. either way if my reputation is at stake and someone is cheating to beat me, i'd be pissed too. they arent going to make baseless claims without some research first
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 02:17 PM   #28
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30
Rep
2,244
Posts

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///Mantis View Post
porsche always complains lol

japanese drivers know how to drive, that's all
Many of the things you post are really stupid, but even you managed to top yourself with this one.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 02:19 PM   #29
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30
Rep
2,244
Posts

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaeS4 View Post
This is what bothers me a little bit about this, the fact that the test came from a competitor and making direct accusations without any vital proof, at least not yet. The test or proof should come from an independent non-bias party, and test both cars in The Ring and setttle this once and for all. I think we can all agree that the GTR is under-rated, so let's just see how much quicker it really is compare to the 997TT in The Ring. We have seen in several comparison test between the GTR and 997TT from several magazine that the GTR is quicker in acceleration, so i think it's safe to say that the GTR is better on those aspect.
People are smoking crack about the GTR. Nissan has the whole world convinced this car is the freaking messiah. It is amazing how they have been able to warp the minds of the sheep.

The car is not faster in acceleration than a 997 turbo, every test, especially head to head, has the GTR running slower times, as its porky ass should.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 02:22 PM   #30
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30
Rep
2,244
Posts

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Boy is it fun to read this after all the pages and pages of debate on this topic in months past. You can't beat physics. There is no way a random production GT-R that meets published specs even with a hot shoe driver is going to get 7:29.
Someone with a brain, thank you.

The GTR is not lapping what a Carrera GT laps, people are so stupid it is incredible.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 02:23 PM   #31
JEllis
Brigadier General
JEllis's Avatar
84
Rep
4,781
Posts

 
Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
OK, let me answer that debate quite easily. Which car would you expect a Porsche chassis engineer/tester to be quickest in?

The person knows the capabilities of the Porsche car inside out, were as the Nissan is an unknown quantity so to speak. I bet if he/she was at the development stage of the GTR and seen it through to production the likelihood would be that this person would be quicker in the GTR instead of the Porsche.

As for their time of 7:54, well that is absurd, the sheer mathematics of this would have the GTR quicker when it's trick awd system is taken into account. Every other roadtest which has compared all of these cars has shown the Nissan to be quicker, maybe only slightly so with the GT2 but with the Turbo the gap is enough to place it into a league above.

This one is for swamp,

I was down at the local Nissan dealer talking about the availability of the GTR and generally showing a bit of interest to see what I could learn. I asked the question about output and how it seem to be defying the laws of physics with it's incredible acceleration compared to other cars like the 997 Turbo (which they all use as a reference) and his reply was that the figures were indeed above the 500hp mark. The reason given was to make sure that regardless of the temperature and altitude the car would always guarantee it's quoted figure.

This sounds very reasonable to me as an explanation and with what I know of turbo engines and how temperature and air density affect their performance I am in agreement with this.

So the sales rep gave this info? Its actually possible and I am surprised something so logical could come from a dealership sales rep. However, most likely, it is just a good theory.

In reality GTR's have historically always been underrated. This particular version is actually not as underrated as the R34 or R33 was. What was the old figure...260hp or something for the R34/33...what a joke.

Jason
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 02:56 PM   #32
jaeS4
Private
5
Rep
72
Posts

 
Drives: s4
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: nyc

iTrader: (0)

Here you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
People are smoking crack about the GTR. Nissan has the whole world convinced this car is the freaking messiah. It is amazing how they have been able to warp the minds of the sheep.

The car is not faster in acceleration than a 997 turbo, every test, especially head to head, has the GTR running slower times, as its porky ass should.
This is just one of the test that the GTR was faster around the track compare to the 997TT and Z06. The comparison from C&D was a completely different results, but C&D did admit that the GTR they had that day was completely off compare to the first one they tested and the one after the comparison as well. Now i'm not saying that the GTR is a better car overall nor would i prefer it over the Porsche. I'm just stating the results of many independent testers and magazines that the GTR is quicker overall. BTW, no need for insults and inapproriate remarks, it's not needed. I stand corrected about the acceleration times, it is not quicker, but it is just as quick as the 997TT. So in any given day, either car can have an advantage depending on the driver and condition. But on a long track, the GTR might have an advantage.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6591
Nissan GTR:
Points: 386.6
Lap Times: 1:56.9


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6592
Z06 Corvette:
Points: 384.2
Lap Times: 2:02.2


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6593
911 Turbo:
Points: 380.7
Lap Times: 2:02.1

Last edited by jaeS4; 10-01-2008 at 03:32 PM.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 03:22 PM   #33
Ryan(e92)
Captain
United_States
8
Rep
704
Posts

 
Drives: SG M6 coupe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Newport Beach

iTrader: (6)

It isnt compilicated. Tires and a shitload more boost and viola 7:29.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 03:46 PM   #34
Sticky
Banned
United_States
30
Rep
2,244
Posts

 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaeS4 View Post
This is just one of the test that the GTR was faster around the track compare to the 997TT and Z06. The comparison from C&D was a completely different results, but C&D did admit that the GTR they had that day was completely off compare to the first one they tested and the one after the comparison as well. Now i'm not saying that the GTR is a better car overall nor would i prefer it over the Porsche. I'm just stating the results of many independent testers and magazines that the GTR is quicker overall. BTW, no need for insults and inapproriate remarks, it's not needed. I stand corrected about the acceleration times, it is not quicker, but it is just as quick as the 997TT. So in any given day, either car can have an advantage depending on the driver and condition. But on a long track, the GTR might have an advantage.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6591
Nissan GTR:
Points: 386.6
Lap Times: 1:56.9


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6592
Z06 Corvette:
Points: 384.2
Lap Times: 2:02.2


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6593
911 Turbo:
Points: 380.7
Lap Times: 2:02.1
As I said, I was speaking strictly about acceleration in regards to your post. The around the track performance I will give to it, as apparently it is competition for the Carrera GT not the 911 turbo around the track
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 03:49 PM   #35
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
154
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
I disagree that all GTRs which have been tested are tweaked by Nissan, especially the ones which were personal imports.

When people praised the M3 for matching the R8 on the ring, did anyone here make the comment 'that car was tweaked' and 'no M3 should be able to equal an R8'. No of course they didn't, this is a BMW forum. That's the reason why so many here are disbelieve the GTR could possibly be this quick, after all it's the price of an M3 but destroys it.

Whether the GTR is capable of 7:29 is really irrelevant, what is the issue is that Porsche are saying that it's little quicker than a 280hp NSX-R (7:56). Sorry but that is absurd and Porsche should know better, every test, every one has shown the GTR to be quicker than the 997tt and we are not talking of the odd tenth of a second here or there, the difference is usually seconds and that should amount to the GTR being considerable quicker on the ring.

If Porsche says the 997tt is capable of lapping the ring in 7:40 then I would think that the time Nissan achieved with the GTR is perfectly acceptable.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 03:57 PM   #36
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
154
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEllis View Post
So the sales rep gave this info? Its actually possible and I am surprised something so logical could come from a dealership sales rep. However, most likely, it is just a good theory.

In reality GTR's have historically always been underrated. This particular version is actually not as underrated as the R34 or R33 was. What was the old figure...260hp or something for the R34/33...what a joke.

Jason
I personally believe his comments were his own opinion on why the GTR is so quick, whether it's from Nissan themselves is debatable. One thing is for sure, turbo engines do have problems with heat and altitude and it is not unheard of for a manufacturer to increase the output to cope and guarantee the car meets the quoted figures, it's well publicised that the Veyron is one of those car.

P.S.
The R33 and R34 are a totally different argument, back then there was an agreement between the manufacturers of Japan and the Government to restrict outputs to 280PS, this is no longer an issue and Nissan can produce as much as they see fit. If they wanted the R35 to have 600hp there was nothing stopping them.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 04:48 PM   #37
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,907
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan(e92) View Post
It isnt compilicated. Tires and a shitload more boost and viola 7:29.
Well, it's a little complicated.

In pretty much every comparison test I've read (on both sides of the Atlantic), the GT-R is merely mortal out on the road, compared to, say, the Porsche Turbo and Corvette Z06. It has an apparently magical launch control system which makes it work out very well in the standing start quarter mile, but at speed, the other two cars have it covered in terms of acceleration.

On a road course, however, the GT-R simply walks away from the other two, no matter the track, and no matter the magazine doing the test. The Road and Track comparison test quoted above is typical. The GT-R in this test is clearly down on power to weight compared to the other two. Although launch control means it's only a tick behind the Porsche and Vette at the quarter mile point, it finishes the quarter at 116 MPH, while the other two cars are in the 120s.

Yet, on the track, the GT-R blows away the other two by about 2.5 seconds per minute.

2.5 seconds per minute!

Then there's the actual vs rated power issue. Swamp and I (and others) have debated this ad nauseum, but with many tests of U.S. spec cars now on the books, it certainly seems as if the car is making more than its rated power. By how much, I'm not sure, because I'm simply not smart enough to authoritatively predict how much power is lost in the driveline. This is because the GT-R directs more power to the rear wheels than the fronts when traction is good, so less power will be lost in the drive train than if the power is equally distributed.

In any event, I can't seem to find anything that says the car's power is SAE certified, which in itself is suspect, since my understanding is that each of the Japanese manufacturers promised to SAE certify the power ratings of everything sold in the U.S. (Anybody have data to the contrary?)

All this said, I believe a production GT-R (with whatever power that makes) did a 7:29 at the 'Ring, at a guess on those sticky Dunlops which are apparently the hot tip on this car (as opposed to the Bridgestones, which are merely terrific).

I have never seen a comparison test where the GT-R could stay with the Porsche in a straight line (except for the launch), and I've never seen a comparison test where the Porsche could stay with the GT-R on a road course.

Porsche needs to put up or shut up.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 04:58 PM   #38
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,907
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
...And for the Caddy lovers who though John Heinracy was just an ordinary engineer when he cracked 8:00 in the new CTS-V.... Watch this video...
I've not been a Cadillac fan for decades, but this new offering has me interested for sure.

I'd venture to guess that Heinricy is a known quantity to anybody who is a carnut - even on a BMW site.

Bruce

PS - Looking at that 7:59 lap, it struck me how relaxed Heinricy looked. Of course, some of that was because the car was an automatic, which is itself interesting because obviously the automatic is quicker than the stick, or that would not have been the transmission of choice.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 05:06 PM   #39
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,907
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herms View Post
just read a piece somewhere discussing how there's no standard to how these times are measured to begin with, so it's not clear that comparisons are valid unless it's the same source testing each car.
Make that same source, same day. Weather can be a big factor in performance.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 05:16 PM   #40
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,907
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Someone with a brain, thank you.

The GTR is not lapping what a Carrera GT laps, people are so stupid it is incredible.
Count me among the stupid, then - Swamp was extremely careful in his wording.

In fact, the GT-R did a 7:29 at the 'Ring, and since it's been shown to be demonstrably quicker around a road course (any road course) than the Porsche Turbo, even when it can't match the Porsche in a straight line except at launch, what's so hard to believe? 11 seconds in more than 7 minutes seems to fall in line with the gap seen at other venues.

Bruce

PS - When a physicist doesn't have all the facts, physics gets to be pretty damned imprecise.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 05:40 PM   #41
Advskier
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep
267
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 E92
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Salt Lake City

iTrader: (0)

Maybe Porsche and Nissan can have a factory wheel to wheel shootout (with stock cars) to settle this.
Of course, if Porsche loses, Nissan will have a party with it.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 05:48 PM   #42
!Xoible
Banned
United_States
554
Rep
46,037
Posts

 
Drives: ....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .

iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2008 M3  [3.50]
2007 335i  [4.50]
2008 528i  [4.00]
2006 Infiniti - G35 ...  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Many of the things you post are really stupid, but even you managed to top yourself with this one.
oh they're meant for the "low IQ left handed lesbians for jesus club". u can ignore

and no sticky, tests where 997 beat the GTR are very rare compared to the other much more common case. Marketing involvement of Porsche like that only reflects development failures. if Porsche's claims are BS they gonna be hella embarrassed
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 06:02 PM   #43
JetBlack5OC
Major
14
Rep
1,132
Posts

 
Drives: E60&E92
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: west

iTrader: (0)

It is all marketing boys, it is all marketing.

Nissan and GM know what they are doing.
Appreciate 0
      10-01-2008, 08:19 PM   #44
monaroCountry
New Member
2
Rep
19
Posts

 
Drives: Car
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
In reality GTR's have historically always been underrated. This particular version is actually not as underrated as the R34 or R33 was. What was the old figure...260hp or something for the R34/33...what a joke.
Even if the old GTR was underrated, do you honestly think that a stock R33 can run as fast around Nurburgring as the new BMW M3 and the 550hp CTS-V? According to Nissan the old R33 ran a time of 7:59 around the ring which is the same as the CTS-V.


Quote:
I have never seen a comparison test where the GT-R could stay with the Porsche in a straight line (except for the launch), and I've never seen a comparison test where the Porsche could stay with the GT-R on a road course.
That’s part of the problem. The Nurburgring is a high speed track and the GTR shouldn’t have the advantage over the Porsche and especially the ZO6. The GTR was also as fast as the Corvette ZR1 on the long straight and reached a velocity speed of around 180mph (the ZR1 I think had 179mph). This alone indicates that the GTR had more power than stock.


Quote:
PS - Looking at that 7:59 lap, it struck me how relaxed Heinricy looked. Of course, some of that was because the car was an automatic, which is itself interesting because obviously the automatic is quicker than the stick, or that would not have been the transmission of choice.
Heinricy actually said that a manual might have been slightly faster and that he would have preferred to drive the manual. The only reason he used the automatic was because of familiarity. He said that it would have been very difficult to learn all the shift points in a couple of laps.

Quote:
Is there a Sportauto time for the GTR?
Theres no supertest yet. I think Sport Auto actually waits for a stock showroom version in Germany. But according to Horst Von Saurma a time of 7:40 is pretty optimistic 7:50 would be closer to the mark (which backs up Porsches comment).




Quote:
Porsche ought to be very careful. They are getting into the area of libel/slander. If Nissan can show pictures or video of the car before its run along with affadavits from people who were there, and it all shows the lap was on the up and up, they might be able to put together a lawsuit.
Does Nissan really want to push this issue? If it turns out that Porsche was correct then they might face a class action with regards to false advertising.


Quote:
Now by no means is this an equivalent comparison to a lap of the ring but the recent group test by Autocar in the Isle of Man is probably closer than almost every other comparison test held on a proper race track. Enough chat, here's the video of that day's testing.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallp...AR=235168&CT=V

P.S.

I personally believe the new Gallardo will be quicker than the 997 Turbo and quite possibly quicker than the GT2 as well.
Autocar’s Steve Sutcliffe was one tester that questioned the GTR’s speed around the Nurburgring. After testing both GT2 and GTR Steve didn’t believe that the GTR can even come close to the 7:32 GT2 ring time. He even suggested that Nissan provided a ringer for the test.

Another well respected and highly talented non believer was Alain Prost who tested the GTR against some Lambo’s and the Ferrari Scud etc.


Quote:
As much as don't believe the original 7:29 time that the GTR did, i find it even harder to believe that it'll only do 7:54, that's just as suspicious and ridiculous IMO. The CTS-V that is heavier and RWD did 7:55 and the e92M3 did 8:05. Around 7:40 is probably the more realistic figure for the GTR even if it does have over 500hp which is more than likely that it does.
The CTS-V did 7:59 and have SAE 550hp as compared to the GTR’s 480hp.

Quote:
I was down at the local Nissan dealer talking about the availability of the GTR and generally showing a bit of interest to see what I could learn. I asked the question about output and how it seem to be defying the laws of physics with it's incredible acceleration compared to other cars like the 997 Turbo (which they all use as a reference) and his reply was that the figures were indeed above the 500hp mark. The reason given was to make sure that regardless of the temperature and altitude the car would always guarantee it's quoted figure.
0-70mph acceleration for the GTR is indeed phenomenal this is because of the AWD and short gearing. All tests have shown that the GTR falls on its face above around 70-100mph. Most GTR’s are trapping 115mph compared with the 911T/ZO6 which is around 124mph.

The Nurburgring is a long track, the short gearing which is good for tighter tracks should be a disadvantage. The GTR recorded a 180mph top speed along the main straight, the ZR1 only achieved 179 along the same stretch. One can only conclude that the GTR had far more power.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST