Crown

And with a a few small mods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Tfjz0U3C4 

Walter:

MKSGR: 

Did you read the summary of the test? Also, you might check the lap times Both exercises will clearly answer your above question

It clearly answered the question about Porsche's claim. it's not quite the 20 second difference they wanted us to believe in.

It's also clear that the Nissan showed once again that it is the superior product. It costs less, it's easier to drive, it has more comfort features and despite being heavier, less powerful and less track focused it managed to keep up with the GT2. 

Must be hard for desperate Nissan fans to read this test result, right 

 P.S.: Better hold your breath: the Supertest result will be even worse  

Walter:

MKSGR: 

Did you read the summary of the test? Also, you might check the lap times Both exercises will clearly answer your above question

It clearly answered the question about Porsche's claim. it's not quite the 20 second difference they wanted us to believe in.

It's also clear that the Nissan showed once again that it is the superior product. It costs less, it's easier to drive, it has more comfort features and despite being heavier, less powerful and less track focused it managed to keep up with the GT2. 

Must be hard for desperate Nissan fans to read this test result, right 

 Nissan GTR = POS (just kidding, of course  )

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal. 

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR. 

--

MKSGR:

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal.

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR.

--

If you read the test result you know the problem. The GTR is somehow disappointing - if you compare it to the factory claims... No match for the Gt2. But then, who would have believed so

So what was the problem?

 Have you found a test where the GT2 was faster in acceleration than claimed? I'm just asking.

Walter:

MKSGR:

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal.

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR.

--

If you read the test result you know the problem. The GTR is somehow disappointing - if you compare it to the factory claims... No match for the Gt2. But then, who would have believed so

So what was the problem?

 Have you found a test where the GT2 was faster in acceleration than claimed? I'm just asking.

No, you are right. GT2 factory claims have never been replicated in magazine tests.

P.S.: The delta was always small, though 

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal. 

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR. 

--

BTW, if I were you I would be *very* embarassed by the the stuff you posted on this forum (and potentially elsewhere...) regarding the GTR. 

If you were smart you would simply write that a significant proportion of the stuff you posted earlier was wrong and written under the "influence" of Nissan propaganda (which clearly worked in your case). However, you seem to continue posting ridiculous stuff like the above... There is not much credibility left to be eroded in your case. Sorry to say this.

 P.S.: Did you actually *read* the test before posting the above?

MKSGR:

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal. 

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR. 

--

BTW, if I were you I would be *very* embarassed by the the stuff you posted on this forum (and potentially elsewhere...) regarding the GTR. 

If you were smart you would simply write that a significant proportion of the stuff you posted earlier was wrong and written under the "influence" of Nissan propaganda (which clearly worked in your case). However, you seem to continue posting ridiculous stuff like the above... There is not much credibility left to be eroded in your case. Sorry to say this.

AUM keeps making the point that when you have to split hairs to prove Porsche's superiority over a Nissan, this mere fact is a victory and a compliment for the japanese company.

This point is a very fair and a very obvious argument. 95+% of the ability with 45% of the price.

However, as I pointed out in an earlier post the price of both cars is fictitious and thus irrelevant to the comparison. Nissan's price is artificially low, because otherwise they wouldn't find buyers if it was at Porsche level and Porsche's price artificially high because they can find willing buyers at this price because of pedigree and the badge.

I suspect that it might even cost Porsche less to produce the GT2 (based on the 997 and 987 lines of 40,000+ cars p.a.) than it costs Nissan to produce this one-off model.

I think enthusiasts should be lucky that these cars exist and people of different income groups and wealth are given freedom of choice to such special performance cars.

MKSGR:

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal.

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR.

--

BTW, if I were you I would be *very* embarassed by the the stuff you posted on this forum (and potentially elsewhere...) regarding the GTR.

If you were smart you would simply write that a significant proportion of the stuff you posted earlier was wrong and written under the "influence" of Nissan propaganda (which clearly worked in your case). However, you seem to continue posting ridiculous stuff like the above... There is not much credibility left to be eroded in your case. Sorry to say this.

He's right. Try to prove him wrong for once.

And please, stop making it sound as if 7 seconds is a huge difference. You read Sport Auto, so you know that that's the difference between a GT2 and a Scuderia.

And again, the privately owned GT-R was only 7 seconds slower than the press GT2 on a 20km track. A press car doesn't need to have more power to make it better than a privately owned car. Simple things like having the right alignment, new braking fluid, new engine oil or brake pads that have been properly broken in can make a difference.

I'm truly interested to know if the cars had new tires and if the GT-R was serviced before the test, the mileage,etc.

And speaking of propaganda: how much faster did Porsche say that the GT2 was than the GT-R? 

Another strange thing is that everybody compares the GT-R only to the Porsche models.

The GT-R beats or equals other more expensive and hallowed cars from Ferrari, Lamborghini and Mercedes (like the new SL Black) costing 4-5 times more.

So why everybody is obsessed with Porsche? Unfortunately, success in the marketplace breeds and envy.

Walter:

Btw could SteveD say if the the cars had new tires and the mileage and stuff like that?

Walter, I will speak to Chris tomorrow for any further info.  Both cars were running used tyres, with the Porsche's Cup + tyres being particularly border-line in the wet. 

Mileage wise, I suspect the GT2 was well above 10,000 miles since we ran it for over 2,000 miles ourselves back in May, the GT-R was around six months old and was a daily driver for its owner so I would assume that it had covered similar mileage to the GT2. 

We brimmed them with fuel at the beginning of the day and only covered a handful of laps (due to it being very wet in the morning) so I would think they both had more than half a tank of fuel on board for the laps - they certainly weren't running light.

AUM:

The DR comparison is yet another test that indicates similar performance for the GTR and GT2 (if the GTR is on Dunlops).

Here are many other magazine tests with similar lap times.

Nissan GT-R vs Porsche 997 GT2 - FastestLaps.com 

And this is the base Nissan against the best Porsche 911. Obviously it is a clear victory for Nissan that they get so close to the mighty GT2 .

--

You seem to be in a state of extreme despair. It is no problem if you are restricted in your car buying decisions. In a different thread you explain that you can only buy a Nissan GTR or a BMW e46CSL. However, it is a problem if such limited opportunity set gives rise to irrational speculations, distortion of facts and blabla which is then repeated a thousand times.

One of the key qualities of Rennteam is that we have a lot of people here who buy/own/drive various high-end sportscars. Such background is usually the basis for realistic and brand-independant views. The ability to choose between different brands gives you the ability to neutrally assess a car’s pros and cons. You can simply say: This Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche has these strengths and these weaknesses. And then you can just buy whatever package suits you most (or combine various cars with complementary qualities). And believe it or not: most Porsche/Ferrari/Lamborghini owners can also walk into a Nissan dealership and just buy a GTR.

The picture changes if you are limited in your buying decisions. Some people in such situation might have problems in remaining unbiased.

My point is: being restricted to purchasing either a GTR or a e46CSL might be the wrong basis for realistic assessments as far as the GTR is concerned. At least you should put this warning below each post - just to explain why your conclusions are as they are. 

Walter:

MKSGR:

AUM:
The GT2 is 7 seconds faster than the GTR fitted with Bridgestones. Fitted with Dunlops the GTR is 5 to 7 seconds faster - making the GTR and GT2 about equal.

This actually seems to validate the Nissan claim for the GTR.

--

BTW, if I were you I would be *very* embarassed by the the stuff you posted on this forum (and potentially elsewhere...) regarding the GTR.

If you were smart you would simply write that a significant proportion of the stuff you posted earlier was wrong and written under the "influence" of Nissan propaganda (which clearly worked in your case). However, you seem to continue posting ridiculous stuff like the above... There is not much credibility left to be eroded in your case. Sorry to say this.

He's right. Try to prove him wrong for once.

And please, stop making it sound as if 7 seconds is a huge difference. You read Sport Auto, so you know that that's the difference between a GT2 and a Scuderia.

And again, the privately owned GT-R was only 7 seconds slower than the press GT2 on a 20km track. A press car doesn't need to have more power to make it better than a privately owned car. Simple things like having the right alignment, new braking fluid, new engine oil or brake pads that have been properly broken in can make a difference.

I'm truly interested to know if the cars had new tires and if the GT-R was serviced before the test, the mileage,etc.

And speaking of propaganda: how much faster did Porsche say that the GT2 was than the GT-R? 

The test makes it very clear that the "real" delta between both cars is more like 17s not 7s. Just read the summary. The GTR is clearly the inferior car if we believe the test driver. His words could not be clearer.

Interestingly, those 17s would pretty much replicate the Sportauto NBR time of 7.50 (7.33 + .17 = 7.50).  My bet for the Supertest is still 7.45.

SteveD:

Walter:

Btw could SteveD say if the the cars had new tires and the mileage and stuff like that?

Walter, I will speak to Chris tomorrow for any further info. Both cars were running used tyres, with the Porsche's Cup + tyres being particularly border-line in the wet.

Mileage wise, I suspect the GT2 was well above 10,000 miles since we ran it for over 2,000 miles ourselves back in May, the GT-R was around six months old and was a daily driver for its owner so I would assume that it had covered similar mileage to the GT2.

We brimmed them with fuel at the beginning of the day and only covered a handful of laps (due to it being very wet in the morning) so I would think they both had more than half a tank of fuel on board for the laps - they certainly weren't running light.

--
____________________________________ Steve

WAY:
Replacement cost?  $90k!  So if I buy this car, I think I will keep it away from the track and make sure that I sell the car in 3 years (once the warranty runs out)...

I have no plans to buy a GTR as I am not a fan of heavy  track cars. I like RWD N/A cars with a clutch. For a track car i prefer a GT3. After ten minutes it would probably start to catch the GTR and, more importantly for me, it is a more fun to drive. For an everyday car I prefer the e92 M3 to the GTR. It is more practical and more fun. The e46 CSL is just too old and is out of my contention. 

 But regardless of personal preferences, the test results speak for themselves. The GTR is faster on some tracks with some professional drivers than the GT2 and close on others. In the hands of average trackers the GTR would probably beat any 911 for a ten-minute race.

This is mission accomplished for Nissan, but not enough to make me a fan of the GTR.

Wow,

What an amazing serious of posts / threads!

It's quite funny that we all like our P-cars but can't agree whether the GTR is faster (and inferior) or slower (and inferior)!

In fairness to the GTR, the video of it I just saw on the Nurburgring made it look incredibly neutral and flat to my untrained eye - I haven't seen such neutral behaviour from a car driven so fast there that I can recall. But the video to my untrained eye also looked as though some frames might (ahem) have gone missing.... but I'm just a suspicious dude. I'm sure they'll turn up in a skip somewhere...

The winner is therefore clear: Dunlop!

Just joking.... 

Looking forward to the re-rerun of this in spring when the Supertest or whatever it is called is announced.  

SoS. 

SonOfStig:

Wow,

What an amazing serious of posts / threads!

It's quite funny that we all like our P-cars but can't agree whether the GTR is faster (and inferior) or slower (and inferior)!

In fairness to the GTR, the video of it I just saw on the Nurburgring made it look incredibly neutral and flat to my untrained eye - I haven't seen such neutral behaviour from a car driven so fast there that I can recall. But the video to my untrained eye also looked as though some frames might (ahem) have gone missing.... but I'm just a suspicious dude. I'm sure they'll turn up in a skip somewhere...

The winner is therefore clear: Dunlop!

Just joking.... 

Looking forward to the re-rerun of this in spring when the Supertest or whatever it is called is announced.  

SoS. 

IMO faster and inferior :) 

AUM:

I have no plans to buy a GTR as I am not a fan of heavy  track cars. I like RWD N/A cars with a clutch. For a track car i prefer a GT3. After ten minutes it would probably start to catch the GTR and, more importantly for me, it is a more fun to drive. For an everyday car I prefer the e92 M3 to the GTR. It is more practical and more fun. The e46 CSL is just too old and is out of my contention. 

 But regardless of personal preferences, the test results speak for themselves. The GTR is faster on some tracks with some professional drivers than the GT2 and close on others. In the hands of average trackers the GTR would probably beat any 911 for a ten-minute race.

This is mission accomplished for Nissan, but not enough to make me a fan of the GTR.

--

Very interesting... 4 weeks ago, AUM posted the following:

"I need a track car that can carry bigger kids in the back and my son is getting too big 911 rear seats. My family love sports cars and they won't agree on any two-seaters. 

The GTR is faster but the CSL is lighter, sounds better, looks better and is more fun. It is also five years old but I am still prefer it to a GTR. Pity there is no new CSL, but I guess the old one is still the best in its very small category of four-seat track cars."

"I do not race professionally but I do track frequently at the Ring and I need a car that is capable of 7.50 lap times to keep up with GT3s, etc." 

You most likely work for Nissan... Why? 

1) you try to cheat on Rennteam users as  Nissan cheats on their customers.

2) you are the only person I know who repeats the same GTR marketing BS again and again (only a very numb person or a Nissan employee can follow that discussion strategy).

Troll alarm? Chances are high. 

If you read the article till the end you'll see that they also said that the conditions (climate) suited better the GTR (it was wet on some part of the track). On a dry track the difference would be greater

Alex Sachs:

If you read the article till the end you'll see that they also said that the conditions (climate) suited better the GTR (it was wet on some part of the track). On a dry track the difference would be greater

So true.

P.S.: What amazes me is that some people don't even seem to read the test report. They seem to just look at the test result and add some (most likely wrong) Nissan marketing "info" regarding alleged relative tire performance ("this tire is 5s faster, this tires is 7s faster, blablabla") and finally come to the "conclusion" that the GTR offers "similar" performance as the GT2 on the NBR. This is then "backed up" by linking a sh*tty "lap time table" found somewhere in the Internet, which they posted five times before and which was discussed (and destroyed by arguments) five times before. Anyhow, they post the same sh*t again and again and again. Who should stand this dumb behaviour? This is Rennteam and not a public "Kindergarten". The number of idiots interested in reading idotic stuff is limited.

Very strange that is... Nissan might have engaged some "professional trolls" to infiltrate internet discussion forums... Alternatively, these guys could be the victim of total despair ("This GTR *must* be a quick car, I cannot buy anything different, the GTR *must* be the best car on this planet, pleeeaaase...") 

MKSGR:

Alex Sachs:

If you read the article till the end you'll see that they also said that the conditions (climate) suited better the GTR (it was wet on some part of the track). On a dry track the difference would be greater

So true.

P.S.: What amazes me is that some people don't even seem to read the test report. They seem to just look at the test result and add some (most likely wrong) Nissan marketing "info" regarding alleged relative tire performance ("this tire is 5s faster, this tires is 7s faster, blablabla") and finally come to the "conclusion" that the GTR offers "similar" performance as the GT2 on the NBR. Very strange that is... Nissan might have engaged some "professional trolls" to infiltrate internet discussion forums... 

track vid

0-300kph

chasing a 997GT2

Blimey. AUM's been around for yonks. Why d'you think (s)he's a Nissan plant.

He / she could be right - could be wrong, but planted troll? Nyaaah.

I dunno much about this GTR thang. But let's see if someone else can help us...

{Imagine a scene in London. It is early in the morning in winter and the surroundings - Victorian - are wreathed with fog. Dogs howl in the distance. After a moment, two ridiculously garbed persons - some would say in the style of Vivienne Westwood - appear from the murk and walk towards us.}

Watson: So, Holmes, what do you make of this GTR mystery? How on earth can such a machine, with the same power as lighter competitors, manage to go faster?  Something's not right here, not right at all. A rum do, if you ask me, a really rum do. {mutters}.

Holmes: Well Watson, it's all very straightforward, as I'm sure you realise.

Watson: Errrrrr...yes of course Holmes. But don't let me stop you in your moment of investigative brilliance. Pray, what is the explanation?

Holmes: Well Watson, it would seem to me that...

Watson: Yes, Holmes?

Holmes: ...when you eliminate the impossible - the impossible being this GTR machine supposedly completing a circuit faster than a lighter internally combusted chariot with equivalent power, such as the 997 TT as well as many others - then only the improbable remains.

Watson: And what would this remaining "improbable" be, Holmes?

Holmes: That our friends from the Orient in Nissan have perhaps - bear with me here, Watson - perhaps not "optimistically interpreted" the times but have - unintentionally or otherwise (*cough*) - enormously understated the engine power of this fiendishly complex contraption. That is the only explanation for the these most peculiar lapping times we get here.

Watson: Great Scott! {Scott wasn't very great - ed}. I think you might have it, Holmes! What will those clever Japanese think of next? But there's more: your theory would also support the claim that this "sporting cart" or whatever they call it is, as they say, "reliably unreliable", and prone to belch its essential bodily fluids from its nether regions.    Holmes, you're a genius.

Holmes: Quite so. Another day, another mystery, eh, Watson? 

{Enough  twaddle in the style of some fictional 19th century twerp - Ed}.

Anyway, bored now. Off to look at more Panamera pics.

 I have no affiliations with any car maker. My loyalties have been with Porsche and I have owned four of them in recent years. And I still think the GT2 and GT3 are the best sports cars on sale today.

But the GTR is a serious contender for the best everyday supercar, and it is quicker than the Turbo on any track. We have to give Nissan credit for this and ask more of Porsche.

In real life I look like this! 

AUM:

 I have no affiliations with any car maker. My loyalties have been with Porsche and I have owned four of them in recent years. And I still think the GT2 and GT3 are the best sports cars on sale today.

But the GTR is a serious contender for the best everyday supercar, and it is quicker than the Turbo on any track. We have to give Nissan credit for this and ask more of Porsche.

 

  

In real life I look like this! 

--

AUM, you made yourself very clear with your posts and with this latest one.

IMO the GT-R issue with its + and - has been exhausted long time ago.

I find it boring all of us repeating the same things day after day with nothing definite coming out of it.