Really? I'm not disputing that they look nice, but the Acura looks like a Mazda 3 or Furai, where the Nissan looks like a concept car from the 80/90's with a modern twist.

 

corvette is a 370z's rival...

 

How is the SLP Camaro anymore factory than the SVT Cobra R? Tell me again that Camaro's lap times against the SVT Cobra R. If it's only fractionally faster than the Cobra (that I was NOT talking about), then you haven't made any point whatsoever. Still missing: In-depth road evaluation of these cars (and I know full well the Cobra IRS wasn't even that great).

And WHY did they go bac to the live axle? Are you blind? Didn't you read the link I posted? They went back to the live axle because they (erroneously) felt it was cheaper, when in fact, it was more expensive in the long run after they tried to meet their NVH targets, which based on road tests and my personal experience with renting the '05 Mustang is far, far below the better IRS suspensions of the early '90s.
Why does it matter that the GT isn't around anymore???

That soft mushy mess of a shock and strut combo that obliterated the Boss 302 in the British test, right? The same one that exhibited far less wallowing lean and a ride/handling combination akin to a CTS-V on magnetic shocks.
What, you think BMW doesn't have budget constraints too? Fact of the matter is, Ford has had decades to sort out this shock and rubber package. Yet they haven't done it. Not on the V6. Not on the GT. Not on the Boss 302. Not on the GT500. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out what lighter Fatmaro would do to the Mustang.

Where does it say the issue is fixed? They just simply said it's very good, for a live axle setup. Nowhere do they say it's every bit as good as a similary set up IRS. Look at the wording:
"It’s not as if the Boss were suddenly devoid of axle hop or radically more skilled at navigating off-camber curves and uneven pavement than are other current Mustangs..."
"...Ford has finessed the stick axle to the point where it no longer spoils an otherwise good time" != "it's as good as an IRS setup with similar $$$ invested."

Most people would understand the subtle context behind this: They're saying that all other Mustangs before this point did have a stick axle that would spoil an otherwise good time.

Again, unless you live your life on a smooth skidpad, who really gives a sh*t about 0.94g with a live-axled car. Hell, a Scion FR-S on skinny-*** Prius tires can probably do that, and I'll bet it's a far better handling car than your mystery live-axled Camaro/Mustang.

Still missing from your response: The name of this "local range" that you claim to time your laps on. Is this a "driving range" that involves this kind of driver? It appears to be so secret that you probably won't find a single reputable source of another bone stock car ever having lapped there.
Where is this mystery Mustang with all the refinement, all-around performance, precision, feedback, amenties, and interior cohesion of an M3? You haven't provided it to me, probably because it doesn't exit.

 

Only based on the number of seats. Unless Z comes with a turbo version, this is not even close.

 

Yeah you're right and don't forget the Miata as well lol.

 

Huh?? Whatever you say lol. So you don't like the C7 so move on!!

 

That doesn't prove anything, other than a paid GM employee putting a competitor in a bad light. And why would he do that? Hint: He's not selling Porsches. If it's one thing you should know, it's not to take seriously the claims of one manufacturer about the products of another. Otherwise, you would have to take Pepsi's word that Coke is not as good. Porsche has said some things about perceived competitors, like the GT-R and Ferrari, that aren't true too.
Segmenting of times is pretty irrelevant, when mags like Sport Auto, AutoBild, and Evo (UK mag that covered Marc Basseng's CGT lap in far from ideal conditions) pretty much confirm the lap time claims are believable. You are still dodging the questions: Where did I say turbocharging helps low sea level elevation? Did you ever add numbers to two decimal places in grade school? Why is it impossible for a GT2 RS to be that fast on one of the fastest tracks on the planet?

This is the problem with guys like you who look at wikipedia lap times without the context. The context can mean everything. Porsche spent a lot of time developing the GT2 RS on that track, not just for outright speed, but for other purposes (durability, feedback, etc). When it came time to set that time, they spent a couple of hours. GM, on the other hand, recorded their ZR1 time on a single flyer at the end of an industry pool lapping session. You think Nissan set that lap time on just a single flyer? Their various drivers and engineers have said they've spent thousands of laps there (though not all for attaining the record lap). What do you think the effect of thousands of laps is, if not to eventually find conditions that yield the perfect lap? That's hardly any different from adding the best of their segmened times. That's not cheating, since you've established no rule by which all manufacturers have agreed to; like I said, Nissan and GM didn't even have the same starting point!

To put this in perspective, think of this:
Porsche's original claim for the 991 S was a 7:40. At this point, your fellower naysayers would b1tch, "Cheating! They were segmenting their times."
Later, Sport Auto's Horst von Saurma, with only a single flying lap, records a 7:44. Well within the tolerances for a 13-mile track.
Timo Kluck runs a 7:37 in the video. What now? You have a segmented claim that is bookended one side by a 4s slower lap (done with a single flyer and experienced journalist) and a 3s faster lap (done with a Porsche driver) on the other. How totally misrepresentative of the 991's ability is the alleged segmented time? It seems spot-on to me. Why not for you?

If it is true that Porsche segments their times, then their 7:40 claim for the GT3 makes sense: It came during an industry pool lapping session where other cars are on track, spoiling their lines. With the 991 S video, Timo Kluck shows that even segmenting can be conservative, compared to a driver who's fully committed on a completely closed track.

 

Did you or did you not watch the video. You are not allowed to BS people anymore. It is very clear that at the ring they observe each others segment times. These timing systems are very transparent. Porsche has been segment timing for years now. If you can't understand this technology I will ask you once again to read some additional information. You must concentrate on what you are about to read and it will wake you up to the realities of what Porsche is doing. Here is a timing system that most tracks around the world are using. It's called Mylaps Pro Timing Systems. Competitors can analyze each other while testing or during competition. If you had watched the prior video you would understand this. Try again and we'll wait.
http://www.mylaps.com/index.php/us_e.../pro_solutions

 

Guibo, you clearly do not understand how these timing systems work. Your comment about the GTR and ZR1 using different starting points shows you are uninformed. These timing systems use ground loops throughout the track to give segment time data for the user. It's a great analytical tool for race cars or production cars. With a water diamond saw, they will cut a duel kerf on the roadway and embed their wire loop sensors. This is done throughout the track to establish acceleration and braking locations and to break the track up into segments. If you study this info I know that you will eventually get it. Good Luck.

 

OMG!! LMAO!!!
true though!

back to thread

2013 991S stickers for ~120K so not in the same price point.
Honestly I don't see a lot out there that will compete with C7 @ ~$54k-68k price point.

 

You must not have my post.

 

You mean Post #290 ? I did read it. You and Guibo still HAVE TO watch the Corvette Nurburgring Laptime video. It's all in there. Jeff Mosher explains it clearly. Porsche does segment their times. They've been doing it for years. Even Walter Rohrl commented that they should do it as he felt these production cars were getting too fast and why risk a accident.

 

Who cares if they segment?

 

It's false advertising, thats all. I actually think Porsche is miffed at Nissan more than Corvette. I think they have a real respect for Corvette.

 

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya.

Someone's laughing, Lord, Kumbaya.

Okay, everybody sing!!!

 

Go watch that overlay of the ZR1 lap and GT-R lap and tell me I am uninformed. Clearly there were two different starting points. Tell me the name of the timing system used on the Nordschleife. If such a system is already in place at the Nordschleife, then why did Nissan consult with Sport Auto on their timing methods for the supertests (so that they could replicate it for their own purposes)? This was after the CBA GT-R had already been tested and lapped, and during development of the DBA.
Your incessant whining about segmenting is a distraction. If the PROVEN, documented, and/or videotaped laps confirm your allegations of segmented lap times, then what's the big fuss?

 

It's not false advertising, if it's independently verified. Considering the vast majority of Porsche's claims are within 0-7 seconds of independently timed sources, while GM's have been 12-15 seconds off, I think you are on shaky ground to be claiming false advertising. Where is the independent confirmation of the CTS-V's lap time?

 

Any video showing the ring run shows the timer coming on at both start and stop ground loops. It's very clear. You just aren't looking at it close enough. I gave you the timing system company in one of my prior posts. Of course you probably haven't read it. They do all the F1 tracks and almost everything in the States. Their a Dutch Company with a office in Atlanta as well. Everybody on this site can see that your in a state of denial, which is quite comical. So I think we can end this as you have a problem with reality.

 

It's not false advertising; there is no "official" manufacturers competition, and there is no "official" protocol for timing when testing cars on the Ring. As I said, Porsche uses the track for testing and not for the sole purpose of chasing lower lap times.

 

I (and at least about 3 other guys on youtube, LOL) have been looking at it much closer than you. Clearly there is a difference in starting points between the GT-R and ZR1 laps. Not just the starting points, but in the accuracy of the timers (or the videos) themselves.
Have a look.

Red mark shows the end of the white color on the fencing. The ZR1 is right on upon it. The GT-R is clearly further back, yet it's already .1s further along in its timing than the ZR1. How is this possible? Easy: Nissan started their timing earlier.


Note the difference in accuracy of the timers. In the beginning, GM's timer shows 0.0s discrepancy against the independent timer. Nissan's shows a delta of 0.07s. By the end of the lap, GM's time shows a 1.245s delta. Nissan's delta is only 0.115s. Your precious thousandths of a second don't amount to squat.

I don't recall you giving me the name of any Dutch company in this thread. The company that you linked to lists some tracks, but the Nordschleife is not one of them. Just give me the name, and some verifiable proof.
When are you going to answer for your lying about what I said about elevation? Where is your answer for how GM is off by 12-15s on their Corvette claims? Where is your independently verified CTS-V lap? Truth be told, your claim of having owned not only 1 but actually at least 2 Ferraris is a little far-fetched. Of all the reasons to own a Ferrari, I'd say you listing their connection to F1 is borderline ridiculous. The F1 cars bear practically no relation to the roadcars.