TTRotary

That's not a fair comparison. A D- or C-sports racer is a totally different animal than a street-based race car. I have a Radical SR-3, which has only 205HP, but I can pass the most powerful street cars at an HPDE as if they are standing still. The SR3 is so much faster that it is dangerous to be on the track with street cars. On a 2mn track, I am running 20 sec faster than the street cars and I can do it all day long. Matter of fact, I get tired before the car does.

One thing is for sure: once you start running real race cars at the track, you wn't ever bother with a street car again.

Red Rochester

yellerz51

Your 100% correct the guy is a Porschephile. But anyone with the expertise required to run the ring is going to be experienced using some type of car.

I think the really big difference here is that most of the manufactures use the ring to tune the car and then maybe run a couple hot laps to record a good time and there done. Nissan is strictly there to set a time, and it will be all but impossible to duplicate.

Motor Trend ran a test at Las Vegas motor speed way's road course. GT-R, GT2, ZR1 and 599. While the GT-R ran well it still came in last.

The GT-R was run around Buttonwillow Raceway with an ACR, Z06 and a GT2. While it was faster than the ZO6 by .6 seconds it was 5+ seconds slower than the ACR and 1.4 slower than the GT2 on average.

Maybe Mr. Suzuki is the key to all of this. He's obviously a great driver but I can assure you that no one will be able to duplicate his time or even come close. The GT-R is an incredible car, no doubt about it but if Nissan want's to race that's what they should do. Same track, same day. They are just setting up the ultimate test for someone.

Wanderer Z06

I think that although the GT-R has done very well at the N -ring and Nissan has certainly attacked it. I agree in stock form on most road courses it will fall behind a ACR, ZR1, 599 and GT2. I think they play on another level that the Spec V may dance with them on if and when comparison tests are done but the standard GT-R was never developed to compete with those cars. It's target has always been on the Porsche 997tt which it has consistently beaten in every mag comparison test. So IMO it has more than met it's performance expectations and to be even mentioned/compared with those other cars costing considerably more is something that Nissan should be proud of.


What I like about the GT-R and my Z06 is they have one big thing in common. They both take to mods very well and produce excellent all around performance gains with just a few similar bolt -ons.

rideintothesun

Agree whole-heartedly with that line

The GTRs amazing times only seem to be possible in Nissan's hands. I remember when sport-auto tested the GTR they ran a 7:50, and that was Horst Von saurma driving the car. This is a guy who practically plotted out the ideal line for the Nurburgring.

Same guy that ran a 7:49 in a c6 z06 on his first time with the car. The time descrepancy is immense for the GTR, (7:50 independant tester vs 7:29 Nissans Claim)

Then there is DR that ran the GT2 vs the GTR, which Nissan again claims is slower than the GTR by 3-4 seconds. What did they get, all be it in wet weather and no where near perfect track conditions? 7:56 for the GTR and 7:49 for the GT2. So needless to say the GTRs times on the ring seems a little sketchy and over-rated by Nissan.

They may beat the zr-1 with whatever tentative "ringer" car and suzuki driving it and raise the hype again for all the fanbois to disrespect the corvette, but in the end it is clear GM doesnt use "ringers" or heavily tuned cars to bait the public into buying their product and switching it with something else.

I am willing to bet money any stock showroom GTR will never see the times Nissan publishes on the ring. I mean if the GTR is the winning formula for motor-sport racing then I think Ferrari, McLaren, Pagani, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes and all other major players/ companies that competes in F1 or Lemans or super car manufacturing should re-design their cars to be 3500+lbs and use awd combined with the GTRs infamous transmission coupled with that suspension designed by lotus.

Dave68

How would your car compare to the Caparo, which is supposedly a street car? I'd like to see what it can do at the Ring.

gp900bj

Well the Z06 has some lap time discrepancy issues of it's own.

GM claims they ran a 7:43 for a standing start full lap. That equals about a 7:38 in the Sportauto format which uses a flying start, 200m short lap, just like Nissan.

Yet when Saurma tested the C6 Z06 for an all out Supertest the best he could get was 7:49 in dry weather? That's an 11 second gap. Likewise Saurma topped out at 272km/h in the C6 Z06 yet magnussen claims to have hit 295km/h? That's a 23km/h speed difference.

The GT-R that saurma tested was a Series 1 car, back in September 07, and it was a preview drive (Fahrberichte), not a Supertest. The Series 1 car hit a 7:38 so that's a 12 second gap during only a preview drive!

The Supertest will be run very soon when the GT-R goes on sale in Germany.

TTRotary

Well Dave, thanks for showing me something new. I had vaguely heard of this thing, but I knew nothing about it and had to look it up. Damn, what a car. The bottom line is that the Caparo T1 has the same curb weight as my Radical SR3, but has substantially more downforce and 2.5x the power of my car (575hp). So it would pretty much annihilate me and my SR3 if the stats are any indication. The T1 is basically a 1/2 power F1 car with saeting for 2. What an incredible vehicle!!

V8 powered Radicals (the SR8) are of course much more powerful than mine, with 383bhp, but I am sure, given the downforce the T1 can generate and the huge power advantage, that it would still be the much faster car. I am a little surprised at the T1's low 205mph top speed, but this car runs a LOT of aero, even in the low-drag setup, not unlike a Champ car, so that eats up A LOT of power.

By point of reference, the Radical SR8 has the fastest recorded official 'Ring time: 6:55, whih puts it about 1 inute faster than the real GT-R time.

Dave68

I would love to just drive that car once (well, it'd be nice to OWN one, but what are the chances of THAT happening?).

Here's what Top Gear found when they tested one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHWqM4Z-4dc

Simply incredible vehicle.....

rideintothesun

how about DR then what were they missing? They didnt use a intial "Series 1" or w/e you wanna call it yet it got beat by a GT2 in wet weather mind you.
http://magazines.drivers-republic.co...truth030/?fm=2

In the part I highlighted in red your making a big assumption. What methods have you used to come to this conclusion? Did you take into account Saurma only spent a few laps with the z06, if that, same as he did with the GTR?

The GTR "Series 1" or w/e only did 7:38 in Nissan's hands. Have you ever noticed who has ever tried to replicate Nissan's times or anything close to it has not been very successful in coming even within 8 seconds of it. Ok the z06 was 6 seconds off, who knows how long jan magnussen spent running around the track with the z06. But Horst Von came within that ball park even with limited seat time, but not for the GTR

On top of that C&D was it? came out and openly admitted Nissan had technicians tuning the GTR for best possible test results during Car and Drivers initial test of the GTR, here it is, but of course C&D is classified as GTR haters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q83ZW...e=channel_page

Another article posted in Ferrari Chat noted a 693hp GTR setting a lap time of 7:29 around the ring. Needless to say there is some things about this car that Nissan is not letting us know about.
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7...ngtr693my0.jpg

Then there is all these other independant tests:
Quattroruote 08/08
1’15”375 - 122.27 Kph - Ferrari 430 Scuderia
1’15”714 - 121.72 Kph - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4
1’17”600 - 118.76 Kph - Nissan GT-R
1’15”528 - 122.07 Kph - Porsche 997 GT2

Motortrend
56.9 sec - Corvette ZR1
57.5 sec - Porsche GT2
58.0 sec - Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
58.1 sec - Nissan GTR

Top Gear Australia
1:06.92 - Porsche 911 GT2
1:08.80 - Ford GT RHD
1:09.46 - Nissan GT-R

In all these tests there are two commonality the GTR and the GT2. Nissan's supposed time beat the GT2, but in all the independant testers hands it does not.

I am not by any feat saying the GTR is a bad car, please do not get me wrong on this, but I do not believe in is this mythical lap-times that the GTR is capable of only in Nissan's hands.

If by any means or chance a base stock GTR is that fast in an independant testers hands I will drop all my doubts about this car and admit to my error.

yellerz51

Nissan is not at the ring to tune the car. They are just there to tweak the car till they get the number that they can use to market the car with.

In the end no one will ever be able to duplicate the time and that's all you need to know.

Guibo

How do you know it wasn't a Series 1 car?
The GT2 is a very fast car in the wet. It (and the GT3's) are faster than the AWD Turbo on Sport Auto's wet handling course. But then the Porsche-spec Pilot Cups have been optimized for wet weather traction...
Notice also that he wasn't anywhere near as comfortable throwing the GT-R around as Suzuki. And why would he be? He'd only been in that car at the 'Ring for 2 wet laps (and 1 dryish out lap) before setting his time. He also forgot to turn off the VDC completely. Not exactly apples to apples, is it?

Have you ever noticed who ever has tried to replicate Nissan's times never had anything near ideal conditions or hundreds (if not thousands of laps) like Suzuki had?

Z06 time was for the Supertest, in the dry. GT-R time was for a preview drive, in the wet. The car featured in the Sport Auto article was shown wearing Bridgestones. Care to guess how a GT-R on Dunlops would fare at the Ring given similar conditions like in the Z06 Supertest? Even in this preview test with some wet corners, it is already faster than the Turbo's Supertest.

Not relevant to mfr claimed 'Ring times; they almost all tune their cars for the best results.

Someone on F-chat posts an unsubstantiated article originally printed in a BMW Car Club of America magazine. Ask yourself how solid that sounds. 693 hp? How did they get that? Maybe it was 993? Maybe it was 493?

GT-R in the TopGear Australia segment was hard on the factory limiter for much of the straight.
Ford GT in question had over 700 hp, didn't it?
In most tests, the GT-R is quite close to the GT2. Much moreso than it has been to the Turbo (which it beats fairly easily and consistently).
Last statement is not true. The GT-R was faster around Anglesey Circuit in Car Magazine's same-day testing. It was only slightly slower than the LP560-4 in that test. Autocar was convinced the GT-R would have "absolutely blitzed" the Lambo over its timed Isle of Man course, had it not been on the limiter.
The GT-R was faster than the GT2 around Willow Springs (R&T).

Porsche's Rohrl says he set a 7:31 in the GT2 with traffic. Nissan claims the 7:29 time for the GT-R after hundreds of laps, with ideal weather conditions, and no traffic. They only said they set the fastest lap record (at that time) for a production car. They never said Rohrl could never beat that time given the same testing methods; the anti GT-R fanbois needlessly jumped to that conclusion.

yellerz51

That is exactly the point. Nissan is strictly there to get a lap record number, even if it takes them hundreds and hundreds of laps waiting for the perfect track and atmospheric conditions with no traffic.

The Viper gang rented the track for a 1/2 day took the ACR to the track and in just 4 laps they set a 7:22. Imagine if they really went after it and stayed for days doing hundreds of laps?

When Motor Trend ran the car on a much shorter track than the ring the GT-R came in last. On the ring with it's long straights you would think that a car with a much better power to weight ratio would fair even better.




If Porsche, Chevy, Ferrari, Lambo and Dodge camped out at the ring like Nissan till they got the best number possible do you think the results would be the same? Also Nissan literally has an engineering army tweaking every bit of the car, not exactly showroom stock.

There marketing comment "anywhere any time", (as long as the conditions are perfect) is not exactly true. It seems as if the conditions need to be dead perfect for the GT-R or an excuse (dust on the track, its moist, the sun is in my eye, temp.....) is used.

In the end it's nothing more than a huge publicity stunt. It gets people talking and that's exactly what Nissan wants.

Nissan should challenge Porsche, Chevy, Dodge and any one else to a ring race. 3 laps back to back with independently supplied and inspected cars. Bring your best driver. Same day, same conditions. Anywhere, any time, right?

Guibo

The GT-R performs better on longer tracks. As noted by Evo and Car Magazine. And as shown by R&T in its track comparo (as the track got faster, the GT-R moved up in the rankings, not down).
At higher speeds, drag becomes more of an issue and you really don't want the slower conventional shifts of the Vipers and Vettes, not to mention their overly long gearing (good for economy).
Look at the difference in time between the GT-R and ZR1 on Motor Trend's short track. 1.2s. Over the course of edmunds' 1:2x lap, the gap was exactly the same: 1.2s. Wouldn't you expect that the longer the lap is, or the faster the track, the ZR1 should be pulling out even more time? Do you think being 1.2s slower on MT's track is "about right" for a car of the GT-R's power/wt? The GT-R's power/wt is on par with a BMW M6. Yet it has proven time and time again that it's much, much faster than an M6. What does that tell us about power/wt ratios?
Look at the Evo comparo among supercars at the 'Ring: the car with the lowest power/wt was the fastest (even though it was mis-firing), while the car with the highest power/wt was the slowest. Care to guess why that is? It obviously doesn't show up in the spec sheets.

That doesn't mean Nissan is lying, or that they cheated. It just means other companies could try harder. Obviously, nobody goes to the 'Ring to set a lap time in horrible conditions after 4 laps and says that's the best their car will do.
Dusty...I didn't want to bring this up because of the dusty track, but in an Australian motor mag with dusty track, the GT-R was faster than the GT2.
Wheels Mag:
"In some of the wildest conditions imaginable, one of our six-cylinder heroes stood up, confronted the elements and proved its greatness.
..on only my second lap...the GT-R knocks a massive 1.6sec off the Porsche’s best, clocking 1:14.7sec.
If the test of a true champion is performance under adversity, then the new Nissan GT-R is in a league of its own. The more fearsome the conditions, the more it continued to destroy preconceived limits."
And that was a customer GT-R, not one supplied by Nissan.

Your comment about showroom stock configuration should apply to the Viper as well. I seriously doubt every ACR that rolls of the showroom floor is using the same exact NRing configuration. Nor do they come accompanied by a Dodge technician to maximize their performance for a given track, as Dodge has done with numerous ACR tests.
In any event, customer GT-R's (fresh off the boat) have proven to be faster than Porsche-supplied Turbos and GT3's in UK tests. Even vastly underperforming (in a straight line) GT-R's have proven much faster around a track than the spec sheet suggests. You must either accept that these are all "ringers" (including customer cars, LOL), or that Nissan's track development on the 'Ring, at Laguna Seca, and in Japan has paid off. The GT-R tends to be fast everywhere, if not as fast as the ACR and ZR1. Which is what the 'Ring numbers tell us anyway. If anything, the numerous comments about the car's fairly hard ride even in softer settings, and the fact that it comes delivered with track alignment, should indicate that a showroom stock GT-R is still fairly track-biased.

yellerz51

It's obvious that the GTR's advantage must be in it's ability to lay down power sooner coming out of a turn. That's the only way it can make up the deficit in it's power to weight ratio. The length of the track has nothing to do with it rather the number and degree of the turns is more important. Put these cars on a track with fewer turns and less radius to deal with and the overall power to weight ratio would become the real issue. In any length of track that the cars can stretch there legs it's not a contest. You can see why the outcomes were diffrent by studying the tracks.

The first one is Vegas.





I have heard both sides of the fence on the GT-R's ability to preform on a track that's not perfect. Nissan's marketing stance of any time anywhere is not exactly true. When the GT-R was pitted against the GT2 at the ring the conditions were less than perfect. You would think that this would play into the GT-R's huge traction advantage vs a higher HP rear driven rear engine car. But all you hear is how the driver was biased and the tires were not optimal, bla bla bla.. How could the GT-R not absolutely crush the GT2 on a wet track? I think the answer is straight forward. It weighs too much and has less power. The benefit that the AWD allows the car to put down power in turns is less than the deficit that the weight of the AWD system carries.

Endmuds and Motor Trend tested the car and as you mentioned they could not duplicate the type of result that Nissan had claimed at the ring. The reality is that no one will be able to take a GT-R and duplicate the time. Nissan is just putting on a marketing stunt. Anyone that thinks the car is "bone stock" is naive.

JustinStrife

Nissan is notorious for marketing stunts. Anybody remember the R33 GT-R ring times?

Slowgoin

No, post some links.

I wonder how the GT-R will do in the GT1 class:

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/n...mpaign=ongoing


yeller did you ever drive a GT-R?

ptindall

"Nissan has ditched the GT-R's twin-turbo 3.8-litre V6 engine in favour of a naturally aspirated 5.6-litre V8, which puts out a mighty 600bhp and 479lb ft of torque... all to the rear wheels."

So in other words, the race car ditches everything that makes the GT-R different in favor of making it the same as the top sports cars. What does that tell you?

rideintothesun

First of all, I never understood why is there so many series types in the GTR? The car has been out, not even a year? Why cant the customer go to a Nissan dealer and pick up a car that you know is not going being a series lower than the upcoming spring version, I find this very disconcerting. After all this is not computer hardware that gets outdated every 3 months.

Secondly I went right on Porsche's website to grab this little gem about their tires, I am going to highlight the important parts which contradicts exactly what your saying in the bolded part above. Mind you this is for the GT2
When does increased risk of hydroplaning occur? when the conditions are rainy and wet correct? So this directly contradicts your belief of that Porshces stock GT2 tires are better in wet conditions. And this is from Porsche's webiste
http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/91...l/?gtabindex=3
click on wheels/Tyres on that site if you doubt me.

Correct me If I am wrong, but does not Nissan explicitly state in their manual if you turn off VDC, if unless stuck in mud or any other severe condition, your warranty will be voided?

So what are these "ideal" conditions? So for a car they advertise is so easy to drive, but yet it will take 100s of laps of driving or thousands even to come within that ball park Suzuki set? Do you know how much wear and tear a car suffers just going 10 laps around a track let alone 100s or 1000s of laps? What independant reviewer has that kind of patience or let alone the bank account for it, given what Nissan charges for the services. Basically what you have told me is no Independent reviewer will ever come close to the time, which is what we are seeing.

I am not asking for much here, you think anyone will be able to come within 6 seconds of Nissan's 7:29? let alone their new time of 7:27 they set recently?

They had 2 wet corners when they ran the GTR, 2!

I am actually eagerly waiting for this Supertest of the GTR, this will clear up a lot of things once and for all. If Nissan is lying they will be exposed for the fraud they are, if not then all the doubters such as myself will have a new found respect for Nissans achievement, the GTR. With Saurma's experience I am expecting he can hit atleast 7:35 with a GTR (Series 2, series 3 or w/e series he ends up using) anything slower than this will show that Nissan is not really on the ball with the specifications of their ring GTR.

Can you please post relevant links or videos where independant testers explicitly stated that Porsche or Chevy or Chrysler had technicians tuning their cars while the tester was there trying to conduct an initial test? Otherwise I will have to dismiss this as opinion.

How about the time when there was a release leaked saying that the GTR was caught "casually" clocking the ring at 7:25 and all the fanobis jumped on it like a fat kid on smarties? How about the time when the rumors of a 7:15 laptime set by the GTR ran rampant and people were readily believing it? What does a person have to gain by posting misinformation in an article? I understand there is a certain level of scrutiny that any article should go under, but I feel like there is an inherent double-standard with the GTR fanbois, if it is for the GTR it must be true, if it is anything against, it is false.

So whats your thoughts on the Sucderia, i mean here is a car that only clocked 7:39 on the Nurburging, why is this car outdoing the mighty 7:29 GTR?Now 7:27 Hmm? what is the missing part of the puzzle here, perhaps you can enlighten me, and this test conducted by Quattroroute; were they using a speed limited handicapped GTR?

What Rohrl can or cannot do is not what is in dispute here, what is in dispute is Nissan is coming out claiming amazing times that no one in the world so far is able to replicate or come even within 6 seconds of. With the new revamped time for "base stock" showroom GTR **apparently** used by Nissan sitting at 7:27 set a few days ago, a lot of testers are going try and see if this supposed 80k car is faster than a 300k+ Porsche Carrera GT.

Needless to say this whole GTR Fiasco will either make Nissan infamous for having a product so well engineered it can outdo 95 % of its competition with 100s of thousands of dollars saved, or this will go down as the biggest bait and switch scam known to the automotive industry. Only time will tell, for now I for one do not believe in this GTR mythical lap times, that is of course until some one can replicate it or come within atleast 6 seconds of 7:29 in a "base stock" GTR - no mods

Slowgoin

I hope it's in the 2010 model year.

What a killer car that will be. They already ditched the back seat. I guess this is just more good news

Toss some turbos on that engine and you will have some sweet steel!

It also tells us Nissan wanted to kick *** in the GT1 class so the needed to dump the 4WD to compete.