Crown

911rox:

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...

Not really...

Which 10 tests are you talking about?

And fyi, the GT-R won every comparison test so far in Germany (I think 6 or 7 in total). ZR1, GT3, Turbo, R8 V10, R8 V8, Carrera 4S,...they all lost.

reginos:

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.

LOL!

The GT-R has runflats, a boot that's 3 times bigger, rear seats and 9 Bose speakers and 2 subwoofers. It's a lot more comfortable, quieter, it has a auto transmission and AWD which makes it easy to use everyday even during the winter.

LOL honestly!

MKSGR:

 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.

0.3s

Walter:

reginos:

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.

 

LOL!

The GT-R has runflats, a boot that's 3 times bigger, rear seats and 9 Bose speakers and 2 subwoofers. It's a lot more comfortable, quieter, it has a auto transmission and AWD which makes it easy to use everyday even during the winter.

LOL honestly!

 

It is promoted by Nissan as a super-sports car for the track and the NBR in particular and so I comment on this measure.

If you wish a luxury touring car with all the features you mention, then there are also much better choices than the Nissan.

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

reginos

It is promoted by Nissan as a super-sports car for the track and the NBR in particular and so I comment on this measure.

If you wish a luxury touring car with all the features you mention, then there are also much better choices than the Nissan.

 

So basically it's unfair because  the GT has more power and AWD compared to the car that was build for the track...ok.

Walter:

911rox:

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...

Not really...

Which 10 tests are you talking about?

And fyi, the GT-R won every comparison test so far in Germany (I think 6 or 7 in total). ZR1, GT3, Turbo, R8 V10, R8 V8, Carrera 4S,...they all lost.

 Please allow me to add: Except for GT3 and GT2 (based on Sportauto Supertest) 

MKSGR:

 Please allow me to add: Except for GT3 and GT2 (based on Sportauto Supertest) 

That was no comparison test now was it?

Not bad, considering the time Porsche claimed for the GT-R.

Walter:

911rox:

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...

Not really...

Which 10 tests are you talking about?

And fyi, the GT-R won every comparison test so far in Germany (I think 6 or 7 in total). ZR1, GT3, Turbo, R8 V10, R8 V8, Carrera 4S,...they all lost.

Sorry, let me clarify.... On a previous post of mine, I have posted a link (previous page) to the supertest article for the GTR published yesterday. On this article they do numerous acceleration, slalon, braking, aero and laptime tests.... If you compare the test for the GTR and GT3.2 which were carried out at similar times and under similar conditions, the GT3 won every test with the exception of the NBR laptime which was only 2sec off. Even in the straight line acceleration times they were virtually identical....

 That's why the GT3 earned 79 points (including wet handling) / 69 points (without wet handling) vs. 74 / 67 points for the GT-R.

IMO it's quite amazing to see how well such a relatively heavy car can perform with the right ingredients. Not that I think that it's a dedicated track-car, but still...

gangajas:

Not bad, considering the time Porsche claimed for the GT-R.

Not very good, considering the time Nissan billed the GTR to have achieved stock .

911rox:

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

thanks!

Still a remarkable achievement, if Nissan hadn't made those claims, I'ld say bravo 

Eunice:

 

Still a remarkable achievement, if Nissan hadn't made those claims, I'ld say bravo 

I am suprised and puzzled that no one points out at Scuderia's poor time relative to the Nissan (and to the GT3 for that matter). This car is considered as "God's chariot" by many rennteamers here!

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

reginos:

Eunice:

 

Still a remarkable achievement, if Nissan hadn't made those claims, I'ld say bravo 

I am suprised and puzzled that no one points out at Scuderia's poor time relative to the Nissan (and to the GT3 for that matter). This car is considered as "God's chariot" by many rennteamers here!

 

And I would of liked to see a Corvette in the test too
 

turbobungle.com:

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!

I honestly don´t want to get involved into this endless debate, so I just post a few facts:

- the GT-R posted faster topspeeds in the Supertest than the GT3 Mk.2 and was slower or equal in the corners. I am very certain that an intended time attack on the NBR could yield a couple of seconds between the straights by a dedicated driver (without discounting von Saurma´s effort or abilities).

- unlike in other AWD cars, this setup seems to be one of the key advantages of the GT-R, providing sufficient grip and acceleration after the apex of corners

- Sport Auto, a magazine that shows a certain proximity to Porsche, gets within ten seconds of Nissan´s claimed laptime with a European press car that was not specificially prepared for a record laptime.

reginos:

I am suprised and puzzled that no one points out at Scuderia's poor time relative to the Nissan (and to the GT3 for that matter). This car is considered as "God's chariot" by many rennteamers here!

 

 I did 

For a Nissan to be among those cars is a great achievement, but 2 seconds difference on the N'Ring does not mean anything.

I bet during a normal day you have that difference because of changing track conditions alone. 

Buterworth:

 

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.

 

Sophisticated ? how do you explain the every 3,000km fluid change if driven hard ? How many warning stickers did this car come with from the factory ? are you fooling yourself or others with the sophisticated ATTESSA blah blah blah crap ?

 Drivers Republic failed to beat a powerful RWD 911 on wet/damp track, that just tells you how sophisticated Nissan's AWD is oh wait! you'll come up with an excuse (typical fanboy)

GTR: The car that can beat everything once or maybe twice if things don't break and hold up for another 2 ~ 4 laps

Here's one example I experienced myself, the brake pedal start to feel spongy like any other japanese commercial car once it reaches high temp.

I did not want to end up with a transmission failure, so I skipped the launch control part

Temporary (PS3) supercar if you ask me 

--

Ferdie:
[...]

- Sport Auto, a magazine that shows a certain proximity to Porsche, gets within ten seconds of Nissan´s claimed laptime with a European press car that was not specificially prepared for a record laptime.

I have to point out that a showroom stock car should not be allowed to be "prepared" for a record laptime.  The purpose of the SuperTest is to get a representative number for a bone stock car - the kind any customer would buy off a dealer lot.

I know Nissan went to extraordinary means to get their sub 7:30 times and I understand that it is meant to show the utlimate of what a (biting my toungue) "stock" GT-R can acheive under ideal circumstances.  However, other manufacturers, namely Porsche, don't usually go about it this way so it really skews the pecking order.  Depending on your perspective, you can look at it as Nissan rewriting the rules, or Nissan staging an automotive publicity stunt to hype up their "Porsche killer".

EtherSpill:

Ferdie:
[...]

- Sport Auto, a magazine that shows a certain proximity to Porsche, gets within ten seconds of Nissan´s claimed laptime with a European press car that was not specificially prepared for a record laptime.

I have to point out that a showroom stock car should not be allowed to be "prepared" for a record laptime.  The purpose of the SuperTest is to get a representative number for a bone stock car - the kind any customer would buy off a dealer lot.

My comment was intended to point out the difference in performance between Nissan´s officially announced laptime and von Saurma´s achievement.

If my memory serves me right, the last official laptime driven by Röhrl himself has been the Mk1. GT3´s of 7:56 min. Since then, they avoided to announce laptimes that displayed the all-out-performance of the particular models, such in case of CGT (no official continuously timed lap) or GT2 (driven in traffic).

BiTurbo:

.

Sophisticated ? how do you explain the every 3,000km fluid change if driven hard ? How many warning stickers did this car come with from the factory ? are you fooling yourself or others with the sophisticated ATTESSA blah blah blah crap ?

 Drivers Republic failed to beat a powerful RWD 911 on wet/damp track, that just tells you how sophisticated Nissan's AWD is oh wait! you'll come up with an excuse (typical fanboy)

GTR: The car that can beat everything once or maybe twice if things don't break and hold up for another 2 ~ 4 laps

Here's one example I experienced myself, the brake pedal start to feel spongy like any other japanese commercial car once it reaches high temp.

I did not want to end up with a transmission failure, so I skipped the launch control part

Temporary (PS3) supercar if you ask me 

 

Yes.you'er right ,the GTR's gearbox needs extra maintance and easily broken.But you can't deny that Attesa is good for handling.Just like DSG and CVT gearboxs. They'are much faster than manul,but you can't put too much torque into these gearboxs.Of course Attesa need to be impove.It's not strong enough to last long.

And what will happen if you put 200lbs on the RWD GT2?Can it still be faster than the GTR?And put super stiff suspension and sporty tires on the BMW M6,can it match GTR's performance?

In fact,I am a great RWD fan.But GTR did show me that the active AWD will be better.Audi has proven this in early '90s with it's Quattro.

If nissan remove Attesa from the GTR,it may be no more than a BMW M6.

You may think that Attesa is not good for track use due to transmission failure,but Nissan has tell us that this technology can be faster than RWD and Non-active AWD in the future,not only for 1lap,but for ten,twenty or more.It's the same way how DSG and CVT gearbox developand evlve.

 

Eunice:

reginos:

I am suprised and puzzled that no one points out at Scuderia's poor time relative to the Nissan (and to the GT3 for that matter). This car is considered as "God's chariot" by many rennteamers here!

 

 I did 

For a Nissan to be among those cars is a great achievement, but 2 seconds difference on the N'Ring does not mean anything.

I bet during a normal day you have that difference because of changing track conditions alone. 

That is a good point that you made about changing conditions having an effect on laptimes.  Imagine that Nissan has a wide timeframe window of many days or even weeks to get the 7:28 time, and that AutoSport has a much smaller window of a few hours at most.  In that case that, that will favor the results that Nissan could obtain.

baron:

That is a good point that you made about changing conditions having an effect on laptimes.  Imagine that Nissan has a wide timeframe window of many days or even weeks to get the 7:28 time, and that AutoSport has a much smaller window of a few hours at most.  In that case that, that will favor the results that Nissan could obtain.

 Nissan spent months on the ring!

baron:

That is a good point that you made about changing conditions having an effect on laptimes.  Imagine that Nissan has a wide timeframe window of many days or even weeks to get the 7:28 time, and that AutoSport has a much smaller window of a few hours at most.  In that case that, that will favor the results that Nissan could obtain.

Applying your theory, one could argue that the lambos, porsches, ferraris etc are all not tested long enough (ie 18 months of ongoing testing like the Nissan) and therefore if their posted times were obtained in a short window of testing, then they too may be good for another 10-15sec on their quoted times. Where does someone draw the line with assumptions???

911rox:

baron:

That is a good point that you made about changing conditions having an effect on laptimes.  Imagine that Nissan has a wide timeframe window of many days or even weeks to get the 7:28 time, and that AutoSport has a much smaller window of a few hours at most.  In that case that, that will favor the results that Nissan could obtain.

Applying your theory, one could argue that the lambos, porsches, ferraris etc are all not tested long enough (ie 18 months of ongoing testing like the Nissan) and therefore if their posted times were obtained in a short window of testing, then they too may be good for another 10-15sec on their quoted times. Where does someone draw the line with assumptions???

That is correct, I agree with you.  That is why laptimes can be deceiving, there should always be something left on the table for improvement.  That is why it is important for that cars should be compared together at the same time back to back for the most valid comparison.

But in the case of the Nissan the 10-15 sec improvement may be due to ther variables.

Walter:

MKSGR:

 Please allow me to add: Except for GT3 and GT2 (based on Sportauto Supertest) 

That was no comparison test now was it?

 The Supertest is the best "comparison test" there is available 

baron:

911rox:

baron:

That is a good point that you made about changing conditions having an effect on laptimes.  Imagine that Nissan has a wide timeframe window of many days or even weeks to get the 7:28 time, and that AutoSport has a much smaller window of a few hours at most.  In that case that, that will favor the results that Nissan could obtain.

Applying your theory, one could argue that the lambos, porsches, ferraris etc are all not tested long enough (ie 18 months of ongoing testing like the Nissan) and therefore if their posted times were obtained in a short window of testing, then they too may be good for another 10-15sec on their quoted times. Where does someone draw the line with assumptions???

That is correct, I agree with you.  That is why laptimes can be deceiving, there should always be something left on the table for improvement.  That is why it is important for that cars should be compared together at the same time back to back for the most valid comparison.

But in the case of the Nissan the 10-15 sec improvement may be due to ther variables.

 Frankly, it is downright nonsense to assume that lap times in the same car (assuming dry track conditions and "normal" air/track temperature) will vary by up to 15s. I don't know a single professional driver who would agree to such assumption. Maybe 5s - but that's it. Bottom line is: the Nissan numbers are fake with a chance of 99.9%.

BTW, the most recent edition of CAR magazine includes a quote of a Nissan driver stating that the V-Spec is about 2s faster than the GTR on the NBR.

MKSGR:

BTW, the most recent edition of CAR magazine includes a quote of a Nissan driver stating that the V-Spec is about 2s faster than the GTR on the NBR.

They also state the price of the V-Spec to be around £115K, and that Nissan will "never" announce an official time for the V-Spec. Twice the price for two seconds... no wonder they aren't talking.

LOL This is well funny.  Reading all the Beetle Lovers comments changing from, 'no way a GTR is faster round the 'Ring than a GT3' , to 'well its only because its got 50hp more, it still doesn't handle'  (even though the the GT3's power to weight ratio is far better), to then going on about how the GT3 accelerates just as fast as the GTR (in which case the GTR must be better in the corners and on the brakes even with its extra 350kg), to 'well, its still a Nissan which means it can't ever be as good as a Porsche'.  Your arguments change so often!  At the end of the day, the Holy Grail of 911's, the GT3, which is designed from the start to be a track weopon has been beaten by a 1740kg, 4 seat coupe on its own turf and Porsche need to up their game or just be content that badge snobs will still buy the 911!

It is a slap in the face of the 997TT. A HUGE one. Porsche has to react ang give a huge performance boost to the TT FL, it needs to match the GT3...

But the GT3 is a better track car as it will last more than one lap.

Thank you Nissan for pushing the enveloppe!