Crown

artur777:

The last post says that Suzuki could also be faster than HvS for about 5-10 secs on a lap

ONLY in Nissan GT-R test mule. Period.

artur777:

The last post says that Suzuki could also be faster than HvS for about 5-10 secs on a lap

I think that is complete nonsense  Suzuki was always a pretty average performer. In contrast, WR can offer several world championships... 

MKSGR:

 BTW, new AutoBild states that Walter Röhrl does the NBR-NS in about 7.45 in a 997TT. That would be about 7s faster than HvS did last year. Of course we don't know whether 1,2 or 3s of the gap might be due to a slightly faster track. Anyhow, the gap highlights what kind of lap time difference between a pro-pro and HvS might be expected.

Markus,

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the official time set by WR initially a 7:49? The 4-second difference between a 7:45 and a 7:49 could easily have come from the better asphalt that the track was covered with during the last year or so (Porsche Jeck talked about this several months ago).

That would make the difference between Von Saurma's and WR's time only 3 seconds (7:49 vs. 7:52). If the 7:38 Supertest time is accurate, I think a 7:35 would be possible for the GT-R. A very fast time indeed, but nowhere near the 7:26 that everyone raves about.

Crash:

MKSGR:

 BTW, new AutoBild states that Walter Röhrl does the NBR-NS in about 7.45 in a 997TT. That would be about 7s faster than HvS did last year. Of course we don't know whether 1,2 or 3s of the gap might be due to a slightly faster track. Anyhow, the gap highlights what kind of lap time difference between a pro-pro and HvS might be expected.

Markus,

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the official time set by WR initially a 7:49? The 4-second difference between a 7:45 and a 7:49 could easily have come from the better asphalt that the track was covered with during the last year or so (Porsche Jeck talked about this several months ago).

That would make the difference between Von Saurma's and WR's time only 3 seconds (7:49 vs. 7:52). If the 7:38 Supertest time is accurate, I think a 7:35 would be possible for the GT-R. A very fast time indeed, but nowhere near the 7:26 that everyone raves about.

Could be true. Unfortunately, I cannot precisely remember what their initially claimed 997TT lap time was. I agree that it is very likely that the track is a bit faster now than 12-24 months ago and also that the 997TT has a slightly improved setup (which probably also explains why HvS did 7.52 in another try following the 7.54 in the Supertest) 

Crash:

The 4-second difference between a 7:45 and a 7:49 could easily have come from the better asphalt that the track was covered with during the last year or so (Porsche Jeck talked about this several months ago).

 

You have a very good memory, Crash  Indeed I mentioned that Marc Basseng's guesstimate was 4 seconds ("new" track vs. "old" track)

Porsche-Jeck:

Crash:

The 4-second difference between a 7:45 and a 7:49 could easily have come from the better asphalt that the track was covered with during the last year or so (Porsche Jeck talked about this several months ago).

 

You have a very good memory, Crash  Indeed I mentioned that Marc Basseng's guesstimate was 4 seconds ("new" track vs. "old" track)

That's pretty interesting. Did not know that there is such a reliable source for this as Marc Basseng.

In essence, all older Supertest lap times should be corrected to compare them with the 7.38 of the GTR then...

GT2: 7.29

Scuderia: 7.35

etc...

(Of course I know that the world is not that simple... However, this should be kept in mind when discussing the GTR result.)

MKSGR:

That's pretty interesting. Did not know that there is such a reliable source for this as Marc Basseng.

In essence, all older Supertest lap times should be corrected to compare them with the 7.38 of the GTR then...

GT2: 7.29

Scuderia: 7.35

etc...

(Of course I know that the world is not that simple... However, this should be kept in mind when discussing the GTR result.)

 I knew that you would like my argument 

 So the car companies are now likely paying the Ring to improve the tarmac. Cheaper than their development costs...

 The Supertest Hockenheim lap time seems to be between 1.10,5 and 1.11,0.

Source: most recent rumours 

For reference:

GT3 Mk2: 1.10,4

GT2: 1.09,7

MKSGR:

 The Supertest Hockenheim lap time seems to be between 1.10,5 and 1.11,0.

 

Source: most recent rumours 

 

For reference:

GT3 Mk2: 1.10,4

GT2: 1.09,7

...and to add that wet handling results are not great at all. Dunlops are developed for maximal dry grip.

Also, it is grossly wrong to write that the GTR "destroys" the GT3. These cars are on par as far as the NBR is concerned. The GT3 handles better on tighter tracks, has better brakes, a better steering - but 50hp less. Those 50hp are the major reason why the GTR can compete with the GT3 (see recent AutoZeitung test by Kurt Thiim on this).

you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the extra 345kg the GTR is carrying!  The power to weight ratio of the GT3 is far better than the GTR and it should be much quicker in acceleration, braking and cornering . . . . . . but it isn't.

MKSGR:

Actually, Patrick Simon is the record holder with a street legal car on the NBR-NS  He did the NS in 7.15 on an EDO...

I doubt that a guy like Suzuki will be much quicker than him. Also, HvS has been broadly on par with Röhrl's NBR lap times many many times (CGT, GT2 etc.). Sure, Suzuki might be quicker than him - but 12s? Dream on 

7m15s lap time in an EDO is the quickest time for a street legal car is it??  What abot the Radical SR8 at 6m55s??  And before anyone suggests that the Radical is hardly a road car, take a look at the EDO car too! 

pride355:

BTW, initial announced time was 7:29 which Porsche had claimed that it is impossible and they could only done 7:50 with the GTR which leads to a new dialogue between Nissan and Porsche about training Porsche Test drivers.

7:26 time came from new model year car with the Spec V wheels/tires and a few more small changes on the new tarmac.

So what we are talking here, actually is 9 sec which I believe is possible.

Also as I said before Suzuki's GTR could have different alighment and suspension tweaks for the Ring. Even after these alterations, the car can be assumed as STOCK. 

This is correct.  As a GTR owner, you get a choice of three set-ups for the suspension - motorway, fast road or track.  The Cars leave the factory (so I've been told) in 'motorway' set-up to improve tyre life.  At the 1200 mile free service, you get the choice of changing the set-up.  The track set-up dials out a lot of the understeer that is present in the motorway set-up.
 

KresoF1:

 Dunlops are developed for maximal dry grip.

And why was the 997.2 GT3 2.2 seconds slower than the 997.1 GT3 on the wet handling course? Also the tires?

See, truth is you don't know what makes a car go fast in the wet and you're just looking for stupid excuses to explain why the GT-R is so much better than what Porsche has to offer.

turbobungle.com:

Also, it is grossly wrong to write that the GTR "destroys" the GT3. These cars are on par as far as the NBR is concerned. The GT3 handles better on tighter tracks, has better brakes, a better steering - but 50hp less. Those 50hp are the major reason why the GTR can compete with the GT3 (see recent AutoZeitung test by Kurt Thiim on this).

you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the extra 345kg the GTR is carrying!  The power to weight ratio of the GT3 is far better than the GTR and it should be much quicker in acceleration, braking and cornering . . . . . . but it isn't.

& you seem to be forgetting a certain 200Nm torque advantage that comes with the GTRs turbo motor... i'd say torque plays a greater role in pulling out of corners and accelerating than power to weight ratio as power isn't making a difference until you're in the higher rev range....

turbobungle.com:

Also, it is grossly wrong to write that the GTR "destroys" the GT3. These cars are on par as far as the NBR is concerned. The GT3 handles better on tighter tracks, has better brakes, a better steering - but 50hp less. Those 50hp are the major reason why the GTR can compete with the GT3 (see recent AutoZeitung test by Kurt Thiim on this).

you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the extra 345kg the GTR is carrying!  The power to weight ratio of the GT3 is far better than the GTR and it should be much quicker in acceleration, braking and cornering . . . . . . but it isn't.

 The weight of the GTR is at it is. You will not change that key parameter... 

Walter:

KresoF1:

 Dunlops are developed for maximal dry grip.

And why was the 997.2 GT3 2.2 seconds slower than the 997.1 GT3 on the wet handling course? Also the tires?

See, truth is you don't know what makes a car go fast in the wet and you're just looking for stupid excuses to explain why the GT-R is so much better than what Porsche has to offer.

 The GT3 Mk2 is still mich faster than the GTR on the wet handlng course... Also, the 997TT on Cups is also 1s faster than the GTR...

I think that most of the GTR performance comes from the tires which seem to be very focused on dry tracks.

911rox:

turbobungle.com:

Also, it is grossly wrong to write that the GTR "destroys" the GT3. These cars are on par as far as the NBR is concerned. The GT3 handles better on tighter tracks, has better brakes, a better steering - but 50hp less. Those 50hp are the major reason why the GTR can compete with the GT3 (see recent AutoZeitung test by Kurt Thiim on this).

you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the extra 345kg the GTR is carrying!  The power to weight ratio of the GT3 is far better than the GTR and it should be much quicker in acceleration, braking and cornering . . . . . . but it isn't.

& you seem to be forgetting a certain 200Nm torque advantage that comes with the GTRs turbo motor... i'd say torque plays a greater role in pulling out of corners and accelerating than power to weight ratio as power isn't making a difference until you're in the higher rev range....

OK.  GTR has 274bhp/ton and 247lb.ft/ton, GT3 has 311bhp/ton and 227lb.ft/ton.
So GTR has an extra 20lb.ft/ton against the GT3's advantage of 37bhp/ton.  Whilst on track, both cars should be kept in their optimum power band for best times, you won't be short shifting and letting the the torque do the work!   Me, I love the 911, but I still like other cars too and when it came to spending my own cash, I went for the GTR and I'm loving it! 

any scans-official data from the current sportauto supertest issue?

I too like other cars including the Nissan and think they have done a fantastic job, especially for the price... I even drive a Nissan (not GTR). I'm glad that they have taken the challenge to Porsche but suggestions they are faster, better etc aren't correct. Both manufacturers have their positives and negatives. Even in the supertest for the GTR, with the exception of the NBR time, the GT3 dominated all other tests and matched acceleration...

andrea:

any scans-official data from the current sportauto supertest issue?

Yes, follow the link on the attached link- file share site....

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=31428

Porsches time of 7:50's would be closer to an actual time with the majority of tests having only achieved a 7:50's time.

Even the ring master HvS couldnt achieve anywhere close to Nissan's time. I think Nissan should finally admit that they cheated and used a ringer when they set their fast time.

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

Buterworth:

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

Yeh, thats great... 2sec on a 7.40ish lap but what about the results on the remaining 10 tests, the GT3 matched acceleration and won every other test in far more convincing fashion... I suppose it depends on what one deems an important measure of performance...

Even in the acceleration times the GTR managed only 4.1 sec  for 0-100kph as opposed to the claimed 3.7sec...  and they have launch control to ensure every launch is perfect.... The GT3 managed the same 4.1sec dispite being manual....

Buterworth:

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

 In the end the difference is 2s... Also, on the HHR the GT3 is 0.5s faster  Also, the GT3 is about 2s faster in the wet handling category. Not bad, given the hp difference between both cars.

MKSGR:

Buterworth:

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

 In the end the difference is 2s... Also, on the HHR the GT3 is 0.5s faster  Also, the GT3 is about 2s faster in the wet handling category. Not bad, given the hp difference between both cars.

The Nissan needs lots more power and a sophisticated transmission and AWD systems to be practically a fast as a basic technology Porsche like the GT3. Not a great achievement in my way of thinking.

The ONLY argument in favour of the GT-R is value-for-money, which cannot be denied.

Another point is that the Nissan is as fast as the "mythic" Scuderia but nobody's commenting on that . It seems that most people just want to knock Porsche for some reason whereas they should have more ground to find fault with Ferrari's best that happens to be terribly expensive and carries a very coveted status  in the minds of some rennteam members here.

--
It's not where you're going, it's how you get there that counts

911rox:

Buterworth:

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

Yeh, thats great... 2sec on a 7.40ish lap but what about the results on the remaining 10 tests, the GT3 matched acceleration and won every other test in far more convincing fashion... I suppose it depends on what one deems an important measure of performance...

Even in the acceleration times the GTR managed only 4.1 sec  for 0-100kph as opposed to the claimed 3.7sec...  and they have launch control to ensure every launch is perfect.... The GT3 managed the same 4.1sec dispite being manual....

The slower it accelerates,the faster cornering speed it achieves.

reginos:

MKSGR:

Buterworth:

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

 In the end the difference is 2s... Also, on the HHR the GT3 is 0.5s faster  Also, the GT3 is about 2s faster in the wet handling category. Not bad, given the hp difference between both cars.

The Nissan needs lots more power and a sophisticated transmission and AWD systems to be practically a fast as a basic technology Porsche like the GT3. Not a great achievement in my way of thinking.

The ONLY argument in favour of the GT-R is value-for-money, which cannot be denied.

Another point is that the Nissan is as fast as the "mythic" Scuderia but nobody's commenting on that . It seems that most people just want to knock Porsche for some reason whereas they should have more ground to find fault with Ferrari's best that happens to be terribly expensive and very coveted  in the minds of some rennteam members here.

 

Once the FL 997TT beats the Nissan the argument will turn to 'value' for money. Let them have their fun now because it won't last.

reginos:

MKSGR:

Buterworth:

I had compared the SuperTest details of the GTR and GT3,found that SportAuto devides the Ring in 5 segments and the GTR is faster in every segment .

 In the end the difference is 2s... Also, on the HHR the GT3 is 0.5s faster  Also, the GT3 is about 2s faster in the wet handling category. Not bad, given the hp difference between both cars.

The Nissan needs lots more power and a sophisticated transmission and AWD systems to be practically a fast as a basic technology Porsche like the GT3. Not a great achievement in my way of thinking.

The ONLY argument in favour of the GT-R is value-for-money, which cannot be denied.

Another point is that the Nissan is as fast as the "mythic" Scuderia but nobody's commenting on that . It seems that most people just want to knock Porsche for some reason whereas they should have more ground to find fault with Ferrari's best that happens to be terribly expensive and carries a very coveted status  in the minds of some rennteam members here.

 

No need to argue on value-for-money,just think about why a Maybach costs more than twice as the S65AMG and Why a Lexus ES is more expensive than a Toyota Camry and we'll understand the reason why Porsche cost more than the GTR
 

The really argument is inteligent AWD vs RWD.

Nissan's AWD is sophisticated enough since that no other car with similar power-to-weight ratio can achieve those laptimes and handling test numbers.