Nissan GTR's new ring time improved.

[OzCarfreak]

m3 is over 8.00 mins

[440hpe46]

Originally Posted by shchow

Can you provide your references?
The 7:29 time was achieved with their standard tires, according to Autoweek, and the article also stated there were a few wet/slick turns as well at this specific time trial.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...?f=23&t=455380

GTR chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno told PistonHeads that his baby had covered over 3000 miles at the Nordschleife and avoided other circuits as they were deemed 'too easy'.

Nissan's original target was to beat the 911 Turbo at the 'ring but they ended up worrying the Porsche Carrera GT.

They didn't beat the GT's 7min 32sec lap time, but got a 7.38 in semi-wet conditions.

'We used cut slick tyres' said Mizuno.

'I was not interested in full slick times as this bears no resemblance to a road tyre. 1.2G of force was being pulled in wet and over 2 in dry'.

Also, it was not according to Autoweek, rather according to Nissan of Europe reported by Autoweek...

Now they are telling us that it's as fast or faster than a Zonda and 997 GT2...this is not even the V-spec...what do they expect the V-spec to do??? ~7:00...just not possible...

Something just isn't right with those numbers...around a shorter track like Buttonwillow where the GTR prevailed over the Z06 and 997 TT due to the DCT and mainly Attesa and it's wicked cornering prowess, but on a long track like the 'Ring, where the GTR accelerates slower than the Z06 and TT above 100mph...like I said, it doesn't add up...

[440hpe46]

Originally Posted by OzCarfreak

m3 is over 8.00 mins

The e92 sure is...of course it's not meant to compete with a 997TT...

And just wait for the CSL...

[Sakred]

Originally Posted by 440hpe46

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...?f=23&t=455380



Also, it was not according to Autoweek, rather according to Nissan of Europe reported by Autoweek...

That piston heads article is misinformation. Edmunds inside line was at the same press hearing as the pistonheads staff. they have the same coverage that piston heads has except without the translation error, or misinformation. Cut slicks were never used for the 7.38 time you can even see in the video the tires being mounted were the RE070's. the fact that this stock car on stock tires was capable of a 7.29 time should further debunk this "cut slicks" myth being propagated by 1 website.

Hammad

[Ryan(e92)]

They're called ringers. They dial the car in perfectly. No production GT-R stock will ever come close to either of those times. And for the record not a single stock GT-R in the US will dyno at 480 whp. The GT-R will be bad ass but not THAT bad ass.

[440hpe46]

Originally Posted by Sakred

That piston heads article is misinformation. Edmunds inside line was at the same press hearing as the pistonheads staff. they have the same coverage that piston heads has except without the translation error, or misinformation. Cut slicks were never used for the 7.38 time you can even see in the video the tires being mounted were the RE070's. the fact that this stock car on stock tires was capable of a 7.29 time should further debunk this "cut slicks" myth being propagated by 1 website.

Hammad

The video AFAIK is by Nissan in regards to the 7:38...

And...Now they are telling us that it's as fast or faster than a Zonda and 997 GT2...this is not even the V-spec...just not possible...

Something just isn't right with those numbers...around a shorter track like Buttonwillow where the GTR prevailed over the Z06 and 997 TT due to the DCT and mainly Attesa and it's wicked cornering prowess, but on a long track like the 'Ring, where the GTR accelerates slower than the Z06 and TT above 100mph...like I said, it doesn't add up...

In the end, we'll see when SportAuto does their test soon enough...

[OzCarfreak]

Originally Posted by 440hpe46

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...?f=23&t=455380



Also, it was not according to Autoweek, rather according to Nissan of Europe reported by Autoweek...

Now they are telling us that it's as fast or faster than a Zonda and 997 GT2...this is not even the V-spec...what do they expect the V-spec to do??? ~7:00...just not possible...

Something just isn't right with those numbers...around a shorter track like Buttonwillow where the GTR prevailed over the Z06 and 997 TT due to the DCT and mainly Attesa and it's wicked cornering prowess, but on a long track like the 'Ring, where the GTR accelerates slower than the Z06 and TT above 100mph...like I said, it doesn't add up...

dude the ring has 72+ corners lol it aint all straight, do u live in a cave, ill be there in 8 weeks driving stripped out m3 /cage/slicks will post

[OzCarfreak]

lotta m3 owners, and gunna be owners are now seeing m3 is already toast, and not even 4 months into its life, 7 years of being owned to go lol

[BMW335icDDS]

Glad I'm on waitlist for this badboy.

[footie]

Originally Posted by OzCarfreak

lotta m3 owners, and gunna be owners are now seeing m3 is already toast, and not even 4 months into its life, 7 years of being owned to go lol

I'm curious, is this the only reason you buy a car, to be the quickest kid on the block. I personally doubt there is too many people here think along the same lines as you clearly do.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^ Yup, the last time was a real outlier as we say in statistics. This one even more so, by a huge margin. The previous time was an outlier by 25 seconds based on a well correlated power to weight ratio. Now it is a 34 second outlier. I firmly stand behind my previous contentions that some combination of the following exist

1. This particular car is under-rated.
2. This particular car is over-rated in weight.
3. The tires used for this test are MPSC equivalent or better.
4. The driver is a serious ace (that one is obvious).

Look at the facts the Zonda F is about 600 hp and weighs 2700 lb and laps the N'ring in just about the exact same time. That represents nearly a 45% power to weight advantage for the Zonda. This is beyond fishy, despite what Nissan's marketing team want us to believe you can not defy physics.

I have trouble arguing with any of this, and won't. I'd only add that the ATTESA drive control system might be number five on the list, as it appears to be at least as good as a couple of decades of Skyline legends have led us to believe.

And yet...

We may have a Jekyl and Hyde thing going on somewhere between these test cars. Last month's Car & Driver, for instance, had acceleration times that seemed to indicate that the test car (an "engineering mule") was making around 600 HP. It's possible C & D screwed up, since they tested at altitude (25.75" observed barometer) and may have applied their standard day conversion to get the published numbers. That clearly would have been in error, however, since as far as I know the GT-R will adjust blower boost for altitude, up to a point. That's way too basic an error to be probable, however.

And yet...

Looking at last month's Road and Track comparison test, where the car seemed to be right on in terms of power production (and was slightly slower than the Z06 and Porsche Turbo in a straight line, as observed elsewhere), the GT-R was stupendously faster than the other two around Buttonwillow, to the tune of about two and a half seconds per minute!

I'm not personally familiar with either Buttonwillow or the 'Ring, so I can't really equate lap times from one to the other, but that time difference at Buttonwillow tends to be pretty tantalizing if you translate to 'Ring times, even if you think the 'Ring is more of a power track. Reading what Steve Millen (no tyro himself) said about the the GT-R at Buttonwillow may be revealing. Acceleration and braking were very close between all three cars, "...But in grip, cornering speed and transitional ability, the GT-R set itself apart."

Looking at your list, Swamp, I'd be tempted to give a lot of weight to number three (the tires), meaning I was wrong about where run-flat technology is at the moment.

All in all, pretty fascinating stuff...

Bruce

[footie]

Bruce,

I don't believe that run-flat technology is as good as normal tyres so I dismiss that as a logical answer for their ring time. One must suspect that the output of the example which ran this incredible time was definitely higher than stock but I have heard that it was running a new suspension setup for all new production cars. Is it possible for a suspension setup to make 9 seconds over a 7 and a half minute lap, personally I reckon it's a slim possibility but a possibiliy none the less.

One thing that every sim on this subject can't allow for is driver input, the data being used is based on previous car times, their outputs and their weights to build up a formula. But this can't allow for the driver input and how much confidence the driver feel in the car to push that bit harder. It's here where I reckon the GTR is stepping out of this comfort zone of that formula and rewriting what is capable with the weight/output/etc.

There is no doubt that on the straights the Zonda will leave the big GTR for dead, but under braking, on entry/through and exiting the corner the GTR might be leagues ahead and also remember the ring is very bumpy indeed, it's not the kind of place you want to be trying to manage a 600+hp, 1tonne+, rwd supercar.

I know I went on to youtube and placed both the GTR's 7:38 time with the Zonda's 7:29 time side by side to compare and I am convinced that the GTR was quicker in the corners. Maybe the suspension is capable of improve this much, just like they said.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

Bruce,

I don't believe that run-flat technology is as good as normal tyres so I dismiss that as a logical answer for their ring time. One must suspect that the output of the example which ran this incredible time was definitely higher than stock but I have heard that it was running a new suspension setup for all new production cars. Is it possible for a suspension setup to make 9 seconds over a 7 and a half minute lap, personally I reckon it's a slim possibility but a possibiliy none the less.

One thing that every sim on this subject can't allow for is driver input, the data being used is based on previous car times, their outputs and their weights to build up a formula. But this can't allow for the driver input and how much confidence the driver feel in the car to push that bit harder. It's here where I reckon the GTR is stepping out of this comfort zone of that formula and rewriting what is capable with the weight/output/etc.

There is no doubt that on the straights the Zonda will leave the big GTR for dead, but under braking, on entry/through and exiting the corner the GTR might be leagues ahead and also remember the ring is very bumpy indeed, it's not the kind of place you want to be trying to manage a 600+hp, 1tonne+, rwd supercar.

I know I went on to youtube and placed both the GTR's 7:38 time with the Zonda's 7:29 time side by side to compare and I am convinced that the GTR was quicker in the corners. Maybe the suspension is capable of improve this much, just like they said.

I have felt the way you do about runflats - and still don't like them - but I have reconsidered. It doesn't matter how good the suspension is if you don't have the good cf.

Whatever. It certainly is fascinating stuff.

Bruce

[Zed]

Originally Posted by OzCarfreak

lotta m3 owners, and gunna be owners are now seeing m3 is already toast, and not even 4 months into its life, 7 years of being owned to go lol

GTR sounds like quite the car performance wise, yes... but, it is just so damn ugly! I wouldn't want to be seen in it. Sorry.

[440hpe46]

Originally Posted by OzCarfreak

dude the ring has 72+ corners lol it aint all straight, do u live in a cave, ill be there in 8 weeks driving stripped out m3 /cage/slicks will post

You act as if speeds above 100mph are of no consequence on the 'Ring...

Your post still does not explain the GTR's supposed time of 7:29...just because it has 72+ turns...and at what speeds are those apexes reached???

[440hpe46]

Originally Posted by OzCarfreak

lotta m3 owners, and gunna be owners are now seeing m3 is already toast, and not even 4 months into its life, 7 years of being owned to go lol

Too bad it's not even in the same class as the GTR...and they are totally different cars.

The M3 is still number one compared to it's true competitors...

That's a very 'objective' view for a car enthusiast...

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by OzCarfreak

lotta m3 owners, and gunna be owners are now seeing m3 is already toast, and not even 4 months into its life, 7 years of being owned to go lol

Originally Posted by footie

I'm curious, is this the only reason you buy a car, to be the quickest kid on the block. I personally doubt there is too many people here think along the same lines as you clearly do.

+1, are Lamborghini Gallardo drivers going to wake up in the morning and want to kill themselves because the GTR can smoke their car? Why buy a Ferrari 599 GTB if the Nissan GTR is just as fast? How many times are you actually going to race a GTR in real life. The E46 M3 wasn't as close to the GTR as the E92 is to the new GTR and this may be the problem.

[SteelTorque]

One can also say why buy a GT'R when you can make an EVO run 9's and tear everything up on the track too, for that kind of money!
This kind of crap can go on and on forever.

It's not all about racing and numbers....most of us live in the real world where 0.4 or 0.8 or whatever seconds don't make a god damn difference.

It's funny how all these people buy these cars like GT-R or whatever because they hear it can do this and that .... and 98% of them will NEVER be as fast in real life or at the track, because unless you are a pro-driver, you'll never hit those numbers.

And thats what BMW's are all about....driving pleasure and excitement!! ...

People need to let go of some stupid numbers and enjoy their cars.

I rest my case, your honor!

[Krueger///M3]

+1. I do like the GTR even so.

[gbb357]

^^ Excellent point by steeltorque.

[icemang17]

GTR in 7:29....I call BS on this....think about it.....a 3900lb car with STREET tire in 255-285...with a power to weight of around 8.......no way....the Z06 has a power to weight of 6.3, has far larger tires and 700lbs less weight....how can the GTR do it......

Here is bulk of my BS claim....the Veyron with 1001hp in 4300lbs for a power-weight of 4.3 with HUGE custom tires can to a 7:40.....so tell me how the GTR with less tires, way less than 1/2 the power can do the ring 11 seconds faster....

[devo]

Originally Posted by icemang17

GTR in 7:29....I call BS on this....think about it.....a 3900lb car with STREET tire in 255-285...with a power to weight of around 8.......no way....the Z06 has a power to weight of 6.3, has far larger tires and 700lbs less weight....how can the GTR do it......

Here is bulk of my BS claim....the Veyron with 1001hp in 4300lbs for a power-weight of 4.3 with HUGE custom tires can to a 7:40.....so tell me how the GTR with less tires, way less than 1/2 the power can do the ring 11 seconds faster....

The GT-R can achieve a better time than the cars you mentioned in part because it applies it's power to the pavement -and more importantly in the corners- better than those cars.

I do believe, however, as others have said, that these GT-Rs are ringers and that this time, nor power grossly in excess of the claimed hp, will ever be replicated by the mass produced models released in the USA.

I cancelled my order for the GT-R (due this July) because I ultimately came to my senses and realized that it is one butt phocking ugly machine that has no soal. I would rather go slower, in more style, in a Porsche 911 or M3.