Nissan GT-R Nurburgring time - 7:38

[dechoong]

Off topic... but if anyone is interested, it's officially 7:38. That's fast considering its weight

http://www.topgear.com/blogs/planett...he-show/?title

[mkoesel]

Does anyone not know this yet? But yes, it does deserve respect.

[dechoong]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Does anyone not know this yet? But yes, it does deserve respect.

I've not seen anything official before this. There has been a lot of speculation ranging from scarcely believable 7:35 to downright ridiculous 7:15. This is the first "official" time I come across.

[swamp2]

Maybe should be a continuation of the good thread posted by ruff on this exact topic here.

My thoughts back then were. (amazingly like the long drawn out IS-F thread in a way...)

Originally Posted by swamp2

I agree with T Bone. It does seem like "under 7:35" with "more than 450 hp" (heck even close to 500) and around 3500 lbs (=~1590 kg - which is the best guess rumors/estimates I have seen) is inconsistent. Everything under 7:40 is pretty much >=500 hp and <=1500kg.

The P-C-GT is 612 hp and 3043 lb. That is sick, sick, sick (although many accounts list it weighing in closer to 3250 lb - perhaps famous P under quoting of weight...). Unless Nissan has discovered something magic about AWD that Porsche (and everybody else) knows nothing about from their extensive racing experience and heritage I am suspicious.

If the time is true then either the best guess/rumor of power or weight or both figures are off quite a bit. But damn under 7:35 is REALLY SICK.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by dechoong

I've not seen anything official before this. There has been a lot of speculation ranging from scarcely believable 7:35 to downright ridiculous 7:15. This is the first "official" time I come across.

Right, but the blog post you quoted is two days old. I figured everyone had heard it by now. It was all over the net on Wednesday.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Does anyone not know this yet? But yes, it does deserve respect.

If they achieve their goal of an EPA mileage rating of 21 along with that, that would really deserve respect.

[swamp2]

I definitely do not keep up with the latest news, gossip and official informaton about this amazing car as I should. So someone tell me.

Are their official model variations and specs released for each.
Prices for the above.

Thanks

[Epacy]

Simply loco.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Are their official model variations and specs released for each.
Prices for the above.

Only one model for now, AFAIK. 3.8 L twin-turbo V6, 473 hp @ 6,400, 433 lb ft 3,200-5,500, 3,792 lb., 6-speed DCT in transaxle, 20" wheels w/ 255F/285R, mfr 0-60 3.5s, top speed 193 mph, 1/4 11.7s, incredible Cd of 0.27.

Price is not official, estimated in low $70s. Article in this week's Autoweek, including driving impressions.

[K3N R3D]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Right, but the blog post you quoted is two days old. I figured everyone had heard it by now. It was all over the net on Wednesday.

I didn't hear about the official time till I read this thread. Not everyone is a fan of this car to check on it everyday.

Thanks for posting the time dechoong but this is in the wrong section.

[lucid]

This is pretty amazing for a 4-wheel drive 480hp car weighing ~3800lbs. If these specs are accurate, they must have done some superb engineering to keep losses low and traction high...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by lucid

This is pretty amazing for a 4-wheel drive 480hp car weighing ~3800lbs. If these specs are accurate, they must have done some superb engineering to keep losses low and traction high...

I have a really hard time buying the numbers (again the collective of claimed specs and this unofficial Ring time). Like I said above, and it the other thread on this topic, the numbers really don't add up. Pretty much everything under 7:40 on the ring is >500 hp and <3300 lb meaning less than 6.6 lb/hp. This car by its specs is running about 8 lb/hp. enigma - what do you think - am I missing something here?

[ynotony]

Here is a cockpit video of the car running a 7:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGe_fyhQazg

[lucid]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have a really hard time buying the numbers (again the collective of claimed specs and this unofficial Ring time). Like I said above, and it the other thread on this topic, the numbers really don't add up. Pretty much everything under 7:40 on the ring is >500 hp and <3300 lb meaning less than 6.6 lb/hp. This car by its specs is running about 8 lb/hp. enigma - what do you think - am I missing something here?

I'll run and post a regression analysis this weekend for lb/hp vs. lap time on the ring.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ynotony

Here is a cockpit video of the car running a 7:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGe_fyhQazg

Wow, that is indeed sick. Thanks for the link.

[swamp2]

Some good (just a little actually) there on youtube about it not being a BTG or "bridge to gantry" lap and that the lap may have been cut just a bit short (consistent with the way it is run by others, or some such subtlety). There is also the 20.6 vs. 20.8 km issue. One fellow said a "normal" lap would be more like 7:44. These all may be complete non issues. I am far from an expert on the Ring - I think we need some help from South who has been suspiciously absent from the forum for a coulpe days. These suspicions are consistent with my thoughts about power to weight as well. Other questions (as we all usually ask):

-production car? (doubtful in this case, literally "production")
-tires? (UHP, UHP+, race tires, etc.)
-driver? (this was likely a factory ace, will be good to see Sportauto time as well)

Again not that this takes anything away from this accomplishment nor the video at hand! Way to go Nissan!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Celsius

Also, the 3800lbs is meant to aid in the downforce needed to keep the GTR SUPER STABLE at top speeds.

Dude, are you crazy? The proper way to get down force for stability is with aerodynamics not weight. Aerodynamics can be a weight penalty free way to get down force. Added mass kills acceleration and moments of intetia, polar and lateral, which very much adversely affect handling.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Dude, are you crazy? The proper way to get down force for stability is with aerodynamics not weight. Aerodynamics can be a weight penalty free way to get down force. Added mass kills acceleration and moments of intetia, polar and lateral, which very much adversely affect handling.

Swamp, whether you believe it or not, or it is just a marketing ploy, that statement is in the official press release and I believe that is what he was restating.

[Epacy]

Celsisus, where are you getting those pics. I would like more.
I see a CF tray.

One bad thing, Nissan changed the tips from the concept. They look worse now. The exhaust tips have been completely stripped of any shine.
Before they had a thicker wall and had more appeal.

[coaster]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have a really hard time buying the numbers ...

So you think the numbers are bogus swamp? What did you expect this car to be, slower than the M3?

By the way I am on record that this car and the M3 w/ DCT will be even money out the door. The M3 might even be a bit more expensive the way the dollar is tanking against the Euro. We are one more rate cut away from an all out assault on the dollar.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by coaster

So you think the numbers are bogus swamp? What did you expect this car to be, slower than the M3?

By the way I am on record that this car and the M3 w/ DCT will be even money out the door. The M3 might even be a bit more expensive the way the dollar is tanking against the Euro. We are one more rate cut away from an all out assault on the dollar.

Come on get real. There is no way the M3 nor M3 M-DCT will even come close to the performance of this car. Why do you keep leaning on me as a fanboy? Did you read the long IS-F test vs. simulation thread today? I just like to use common sense, scaling, physics/engineering and science to validate claims. Not sure why being skeptical and scientific means fanboy - I'd say it is the opposite.

I was the first to criticize BMW if they are to go around touting a N'ring time using tires that are not offered stock on the car. Did you forget this big red flag of "fanboy-ism" on my behalf

I'll place a large wager with you on your price estimates, by the way. This GT-R needs to outprice the Z06 at $71k and the 997 Turbo at $126k. The base on the M3 with M-DCT will surely be in the 60s and the GT-R at best will be in the very high 60s more likely 70s. Want to make it a wager like the one I made with JEllis on pricing (inspired by T Bone)? The looser has to plaster their car with tons of ricey stickers.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'll place a large wager with you on your price estimates, by the way. This GT-R needs to outprice the Z06 at $71k and the 997 Turbo at $126k. The base on the M3 with M-DCT will surely be in the 60s and the GT-R at best will be in the very high 60s more likely 70s. Want to make it a wager like the one I made with JEllis on pricing (inspired by T Bone)? The looser has to plaster their car with tons of ricey stickers.

The rumored 3 level trim of the GT-R puts the base price at $55k.
Obviously not gospel. But we don't have that for either side yet.