Nissan GTR's new ring time improved.

[icemang17]

Originally Posted by devo

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.

Bingo.....its just simple physics... I do understand that AWD & correct gearing do account for an improvement, but not that much.... Since the Veyron can run 60mph in around 2.7 seconds its safe to say it puts power down just fine.....

I have no doubts that the "stock" GTR allegedly lapping the ring at Carrera GT pace is on R compounds (shaved too) with probably 700+hp....

Once GTR's get into production and people start taking them out the track...it will be VERY telling as to how good they really are......I would LOVE to see one at a track day!!! In my M3 of course....

[dechoong]

Some info on the revised GT-R that did 7:29... though I'm still sceptical about the time.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Se...ed-for-Europe/

Took a trip over the weekend down to Singapore in the 997S. On my way back on Sunday afternoon cruising around 170km/h, I've had 2 black GT-Rs creeping up in my rear view mirror. Dropping a gear and moving aside in anticipation, the lead car pull up along side and the driver turned his head to take a look. The next moment he gunned it and boy, the GT-R has a big sound. Not the kind of engine roar like a M3 or 997S, more exhaust based. Anyway, I can't keep up with the 2 GT-Rs... by the time I backed off around 250km/h, they were about 200ft ahead. It was quite exhilarating

Sorry, no pics or video. Don't want to fumble through my video phone at that speed.

[shchow]

Originally Posted by icemang17

Bingo.....its just simple physics... I do understand that AWD & correct gearing do account for an improvement, but not that much.... Since the Veyron can run 60mph in around 2.7 seconds its safe to say it puts power down just fine.....

I have no doubts that the "stock" GTR allegedly lapping the ring at Carrera GT pace is on R compounds (shaved too) with probably 700+hp....

Once GTR's get into production and people start taking them out the track...it will be VERY telling as to how good they really are......I would LOVE to see one at a track day!!! In my M3 of course....

It has already been mentioned...Road&Track did do a full test/comparison of the GT-R against the Z06 and 911TT; and it wasn't a prototype or ringer pumped up with 700hp. The GT-R was 4 seconds faster then both of them on a relatively short track!
The same reason the M3 is faster around a track than the more powerful C63, it's driver confidence in attacking the turns which is a reflection on the stability of the car.
Just like if a professional driver were to drive the same car you did on the same circuit, I'm sure the professional driver will have a significantly better time. It's all about your level of confidence and experience. More power does not equate to better times. I believe you reach a point of diminished return, and it's probably around 500-550hp.
If you're talking about a drag race in a straight line, simple physics is probably more applicable. On a track, I don't feel that's accurate.
So, no, it's not simple physics...

[ragtopbmr]

well,
i respect u all, and that being said, i think nissan knows what its doing,
i do own a 2005 m3 and i have worked at nissan, belive me they know how
to run their show!
lets not mix buisness politics with performance for cheap
happy motoring folks.

[reinaldo335]

gtr is dsg.

[OzCarfreak]

Originally Posted by icemang17

Bingo.....its just simple physics... I do understand that AWD & correct gearing do account for an improvement, but not that much.... Since the Veyron can run 60mph in around 2.7 seconds its safe to say it puts power down just fine.....

I have no doubts that the "stock" GTR allegedly lapping the ring at Carrera GT pace is on R compounds (shaved too) with probably 700+hp....

Once GTR's get into production and people start taking them out the track...it will be VERY telling as to how good they really are......I would LOVE to see one at a track day!!! In my M3 of course....

Hello!!!1

there have already been many track comparison dude........ you just dont wont to see the truth

[OzCarfreak]

Originally Posted by dechoong

Some info on the revised GT-R that did 7:29... though I'm still sceptical about the time.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Se...ed-for-Europe/

Took a trip over the weekend down to Singapore in the 997S. On my way back on Sunday afternoon cruising around 170km/h, I've had 2 black GT-Rs creeping up in my rear view mirror. Dropping a gear and moving aside in anticipation, the lead car pull up along side and the driver turned his head to take a look. The next moment he gunned it and boy, the GT-R has a big sound. Not the kind of engine roar like a M3 or 997S, more exhaust based. Anyway, I can't keep up with the 2 GT-Rs... by the time I backed off around 250km/h, they were about 200ft ahead. It was quite exhilarating

Sorry, no pics or video. Don't want to fumble through my video phone at that speed.

awesome story dude thx

[hellrotm]

The car is amazing. But I don't believe the time of 7:29.

They just released the Vspec GT-R time last week of 7:25.

Something doesn't seem correct.

[BMW-videos.com]

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....

you hit the nail directly on the head, it's a loud mouthed FARCE that GTR. Mark our words

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by BMW-videos.com

you hit the nail directly on the head, it's a loud mouthed FARCE that GTR. Mark our words

Can we at least agree that the GT-R is an absolute track star, no matter how much or how little power each individual test shows? As an example, I've already mentioned the latest C & D test of a clearly off-spec car that still did really well around a race track, beating a Z06 and losing by a smaller-than-you'd-think amount to a 911 GT2.

Bruce

[BMW-videos.com]

I respect your opinion, and for having 2 rear seats I believe the GTR is a hell of a car. But I do not believe it'll beat a Z06 or any pure-bred sports car around a track, I find it to be an obvious lie. I do not believe a heavy AWD car is going to best a light weight RWD car that was rather tailored to the track, it's just not realistic. my opinion is that all those test cars are simply ringers, upped boost. In the road and track article, they had steve millen drive the car... he drove a worse time then C&D's drivers in a z06, what the hell? I'm sorry, a heavier car with AWD and 20ish less horsepower and torque (and more drivetrain loss 15% plus?) beating a car that's 600-700 pounds ligther. With a skilled race car driver in both cars it just seems stupid unrealistic, especially if you place good sticky tires on those rwd cars and make the tire playing field even.

But Bruce I do not want to promote bad blood, as i'm by no means an expert. despite the GTR's wonderful computer, I just don't see it being a "track star" in comparison to these other vehicles. The Z06 for example has a dry sump for those long high G winding turns, useful for those fellahs with R-compound tires promoting reliability and longevity. Furthermore the Z06 engine is NA, less heat, and a simple but true RWD car with less drivetrain loss and less mechanical parts to go wrong. The nissan GTR uses turbos, and unless thoroughly engineered to reduce heat with larger radiators and intercoolers etc i do not see that engine staying reliably stable. Furthermore I do not see a AWD car with more mechanical parts, multiple drive shafts lasting as long as a simpler rwd car. I'd figure a track star for your common track day enthusiast would need to lend itself to being kind to a gentlemants pockets, less prone to maintenance needs.

I just don't see all these GTR boasts as being realistic, and nissan still persists to make claims that their awd system has 10% drive train losses. I do not see how this is even realistic, it's one thing to crack the secret in one automotive area, but so many at once? Very doubtful, but hey maybe i'm wrong :P? I've also race that the Nissan GTR in the Gt500 in japan is both RWD and NA,as per rules perhaps? I'm going with my intuition on this one mang, for whatever it's worth.

[Sovereignty]

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 totally agree, "this is beyond fishy". I wonder what they are trying to prove by that. do they want to say that they can beat Ferraris, Porsches, the mighty Zonda F and others with their "huge heavy car?" !!!! I simply don't believe it.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by BMW-videos.com

I respect your opinion, and for having 2 rear seats I believe the GTR is a hell of a car. But I do not believe it'll beat a Z06 or any pure-bred sports car around a track, I find it to be an obvious lie. I do not believe a heavy AWD car is going to best a light weight RWD car that was rather tailored to the track, it's just not realistic. my opinion is that all those test cars are simply ringers, upped boost...

So, the GT-R in the current issue of C & D, a complete pig at 12.6 and 111 mph in the quarter - is a ringer?

I remind you again that this particular pig still beat the Z06 around a race track. A comparison test, mind you. Same track, same day, same driver. How would you account for this? The Z06 was where you'd expect it to be, acceleration-wise (124 mph in the quarter), but the piggiest GT-R ever still beat the Vette around a road course.

Do you think C & D is lying? If so, about what, exactly?

No, you've got something else going on here. You'd be pleased if the Vette guys underrated any of their cars (and so would I, having run the plastic bullets for around ten years). I get upset if manufacturers overstate their power, but understating (something clearly true of at least some of the GT-R test vehicles) just makes me smile - and get a little curious, I admit. The 135/335/535 bimmers are very clearly underrated, which makes me covet that engine. Why aren't you burning up the bandwidth about the BMW transgression?

On the other hand, as I've mentioned, I personally think that Nissan is screwing up here, in that test GT-Rs have shown a variation in quarter mile results that show their power ranging from around 435 HP to a shade over 600 HP. These results from the same magazine, which also zeroes observed times to standard day weather conditions. That's a problem , to me. Understating power? Not so much.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

On the other hand, as I've mentioned, I personally think that Nissan is screwing up here, in that test GT-Rs have shown a variation in quarter mile results that show their power ranging from around 435 HP to a shade over 600 HP. These results from the same magazine, which also zeroes observed times to standard day weather conditions. That's a problem , to me. Understating power? Not so much.

This is the real problem. If you put down $70k+ for one of these cars, which version will you be getting? I guess you just have to try, hope that you'll get lucky, and see what you end up with. But I am assuming they won't be continiously messing with the US spec cars, so in a few months, we should see some kind of convergence in the US press tests.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

This is the real problem. If you put down $70k+ for one of these cars, which version will you be getting? I guess you just have to try, hope that you'll get lucky, and see what you end up with. But I am assuming they won't be continiously messing with the US spec cars, so in a few months, we should see some kind of convergence in the US press tests.

We certainly agree that it's a problem, but I have to say that as far as I am concerned, the car is a track star, and its acceleration is less important. In test after test, cars such as the Z06 and Porsche Turbo simply own the Nissan in a drag race out on the road, as you'd expect them to. And yet, on track, the Nissan owns them.

Even so, of course, any nutcase such as myself would rather own the 600 HP version if we plunked down the money.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

We certainly agree that it's a problem, but I have to say that as far as I am concerned, the car is a track star, and its acceleration is less important. In test after test, cars such as the Z06 and Porsche Turbo simply own the Nissan in a drag race out on the road, as you'd expect them to. And yet, on track, the Nissan owns them.

Yes, the AWD system seems to be very sophisticated, pulling all sorts of strings in the background. It sounds like it can direct torque wherever it wants; well not that simple but I need to read up on it to find out what it does exactly. I am sure the underrating has a lot to do with it being an “outlier” in the regression analysis I did—probably the main factor—but I also believe the AWD system has something to do with it as well.

This posses an interesting question to some folks here who prefer DCT saying it makes the car faster, and rightfully so. No arguments there. But some of those folks also argue that the so-called "connection" of the driver to the car is all BS, and that whatever technology that makes the car go faster is a desirable thing in the end, and if you disagree, you must want to live in the stone age. So, according to that line of argument, and if the GTR AWD system is indeed superior to other setups, then we should not pay attention to the negative press the GTR received for being too easy to drive and “soleless”, and we should all be going for it or want BMW to develop and deliver a similar AWD system for the M3?

[icemang17]

SO the spec V GTR runs a 7:25 with 550hp....but a 638hp ZR1 runs 7:26.4....the difference is I BELIEVE the times of the ZR1 & I still don't think the GTR is that fast....the ring is a big power track...just look at the relatively slow times of lightweight cars with low power (like the Lotus elise-exige)....

I would love to test drive a GTR....especially on a track...

We still haven't seen an independant test of a stock GTR at the ring....my prediction is 7:50 at best..... Sport Autp should test one soon...

[footie]

I would buy into an M3 with such a system, it the fact that it's a Nissan and looks pig ugly that stops me from taking the bull by the horns and buying the bloody thing.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

...This posses an interesting question to some folks here who prefer DCT saying it makes the car faster, and rightfully so. No arguments there. But some of those folks also argue that the so-called "connection" of the driver to the car is all BS, and that whatever technology that makes the car go faster is a desirable thing in the end, and if you disagree, you must want to live in the stone age. So, according to that line of argument, and if the GTR AWD system is indeed superior to other setups, then we should not pay attention to the negative press the GTR received for being too easy to drive and “soleless”, and we should all be going for it or want BMW to develop and deliver a similar AWD system for the M3?

Interesting question that gets to a key issue. For me, it's the fun and involving car that gets me going, and I was quite heartened to read (in the current C & D) that in order to get the GT-R around the track quickly, you had to grab the car by the scruff of the neck and really throw it around. When you did, the car was a stunner with its sheer competence.

The reverse of that coin is that you can apparently be rolling through the countryside at throw-the-key-away speeds in this car, but the car is bored with such mundane velocities and G loads - and so is the driver. Yup. Track rat. On the street? Not so much.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Interesting question that gets to a key issue. For me, it's the fun and involving car that gets me going, and I was quite heartened to read (in the current C & D) that in order to get the GT-R around the track quickly, you had to grab the car by the scruff of the neck and really throw it around. When you did, the car was a stunner with its sheer competence.

The reverse of that coin is that you can apparently be rolling through the countryside at throw-the-key-away speeds in this car, but the car is bored with such mundane velocities and G loads - and so is the driver. Yup. Track rat. On the street? Not so much.

Bruce

I haven't read the C&D article, but in the video reviews I've seen--remember the one they did with the TT, GTR, and the M3--they said you should throw the GTR at the curves without worrying too much about what would happen, and the computer would figure it all and get you got out of it in optimal time and speed. So, they claimed although the GTR clearly chewed up on the TT on the track, it was much easier to drive and had less driver invovlement or something to that effect.

[swamp2]

Good discussion on the "involvement issue". We have talked on this point in the past. It is a fine line between easy to drive and involving and boring. Of course each rating depends on the level at which you are pushing as well. I agree that it is a good thing that cars continually progress and in general become easier to drive and easier to drive faster. All along they offer better lap times yet they can get even more comfortable. Easy to drive fast vs. rewarding and engaging is a difficult and somewhat blurry distinction. None of us wants a car so sterile and safe when driving at 9/10ths that it feels like a video game. Somehow the M3 seems to always find a great balance here. I would love to drive both hard at a track, back to back and experience what so many have so vehemently criticised about the GT-R and praised so stongly in the M3.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

...it's a Nissan and looks pig ugly...

Have you seen one in the flesh yet? I dislike it in pictures, but in the flesh it's pretty impressive. Not beautiful, but far from ugly, and very purposeful.

Bruce