[NewSong]

Originally Posted by EJ2000

Also, you used to attribute differences in times to drivers, but now you cannot?

Look EJ, you're probably a cool guy, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

I have ALWAYS attributed the Nissan time to driver. It just seems that Nissan is the only people who can get achieve that time.

The GT3 time is okay because I was taking it in the context of that particular review where the GTR time is 20+ seconds off from Nissan's claim. You can't take times from different drivers and cross compare them with times from other drivers to try and make a point because you pollute the experiment because your data set isn't consistent. Have you taken an entry level college science course?

I've officially called shenanigans on you.

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by NewSong

Look EJ, you're probably a cool guy, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

I have ALWAYS attributed the Nissan time to driver. It just seems that Nissan is the only people who can get achieve that time.

The GT3 time is okay because I was taking it in the context of that particular review where the GTR time is 20+ seconds off from Nissan's claim. You can't take times from different drivers and cross compare them with times from other drivers to try and make a point because you pollute the experiment because your data set isn't consistent. Have you taken an entry level college science course?

I've officially called shenanigans on you.

Indeed. Same driver, same day is a fair comparison. Two different drivers on different days is not.

A driver that is 9 seconds off the GT3 time is 26 seconds off the GTR time.

Given the GTR is easy to drive, and the GT3 is not, that says something. The GTR is a computer controlled point and shoot car.

[marty_mcfly]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

Given the GTR is easy to drive, and the GT3 is not, that says something. The GTR is a computer controlled point and shoot car.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

Indeed. Same driver, same day is a fair comparison. Two different drivers on different days is not.

A driver that is 9 seconds off the GT3 time is 26 seconds off the GTR time.

Given the GTR is easy to drive, and the GT3 is not, that says something. The GTR is a computer controlled point and shoot car.

The GT3 is about as close to a Porsche Cup Car that money can buy. It's light, rear wheel drive, and has the same power-to-weight ratio as the GT2 on a naturally aspirated flat-6. It's ice cream for motorsport fanatics, but it's an extremely difficult car to drive at the limit.

I just don't understand how people can deny that the GTR, as great of a performance value as it is, just doesn't seem to be as fast as Nissan is claiming based on independent testing.

So far the only formalized argument from the Nissan fanboy side is, "If you specially tweak the suspension, and have one of the designers of the car drive it, you can get the times Nissan is claiming."

[vAnt826]

Originally Posted by EJ2000

NewSong, let's take a quick look at what you've said recently:





Oh yes, and this one too:



Now let's take a trip down memory lane and look at your original post and topic:



No, it is time to call shenanigans on you. Your original question has been answered - they can get within 20 seconds. In fact, they can get within 9-12 seconds.

So 9-12 seconds is an unacceptable difference for the GT-R but 9 seconds is perfectly ok for the GT3?

Also, you used to attribute differences in times to drivers, but now you cannot?

I'm wondering, when do you admit that you are the fanboy here, and you are the one massaging the semantics of this argument to fit your desired outcome? You already have the answers to your original questions. Just take a quick look at the first page.

Owned.

[footie]

Originally Posted by NewSong

The GT3 is about as close to a Porsche Cup Car that money can buy. It's light, rear wheel drive, and has the same power-to-weight ratio as the GT2 on a naturally aspirated flat-6. It's ice cream for motorsport fanatics, but it's an extremely difficult car to drive at the limit.

I just don't understand how people can deny that the GTR, as great of a performance value as it is, just doesn't seem to be as fast as Nissan is claiming based on independent testing.

So far the only formalized argument from the Nissan fanboy side is, "If you specially tweak the suspension, and have one of the designers of the car drive it, you can get the times Nissan is claiming."

No arguments from me that the GT3 isn't a brilliant car and as the purest driving experience and pleasure it WILL have the edge on the GTR as it will with almost every other car. But if you seriously believe that it's a quicker car on the track than the GTR well then you are losing your marbles, every other test conducted else where has proven this countless times.

As for formalizing are argument based on suspension tweaks, this may be news to you but I had suggested this very thing quite a few months ago as the most likely reason for the major improvement that Nissan were experiencing since those early lap times of 7:38. Back then Nissan were having real problems under braking and it was affecting lap times, through extensive testing they finally achieved their 7:29 lap record. The question is whether those final tweaks for track use are really accounting for all of the 9sec between Suzuki and Horst, I personally doubt this is all down to the suspension with the most likely outcome being about 3~4sec, that means Suzuki is approximately 5~6secs quicker which falls in line with most other factory drivers compared to Horst. That still means that a GTR is capable of a 7:32~3 without suspension tweaks, which is still quicker than a professionally driven GT3 and a lot cheaper to boot.

As for your comments that only a Nissan driver is capable of those times, well you need to read up on the subject a lot more because the same is true for just about every car tested at the ring, the simple facts are that FACTORY DRIVERS ARE QUICK.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by footie

No arguments from me that the GT3 isn't a brilliant car and as the purest driving experience and pleasure it WILL have the edge on the GTR as it will with almost every other car. But if you seriously believe that it's a quicker car on the track than the GTR well then you are losing your marbles, every other test conducted else where has proven this countless times.

As for formalizing are argument based on suspension tweaks, this may be news to you but I had suggested this very thing quite a few months ago as the most likely reason for the major improvement that Nissan were experiencing since those early lap times of 7:38. Back then Nissan were having real problems under braking and it was affecting lap times, through extensive testing they finally achieved their 7:29 lap record. The question is whether those final tweaks for track use are really accounting for all of the 9sec between Suzuki and Horst, I personally doubt this is all down to the suspension with the most likely outcome being about 3~4sec, that means Suzuki is approximately 5~6secs quicker which falls in line with most other factory drivers compared to Horst. That still means that a GTR is capable of a 7:32~3 without suspension tweaks, which is still quicker than a professionally driven GT3 and a lot cheaper to boot.

As for your comments that only a Nissan driver is capable of those times, well you need to read up on the subject a lot more because the same is true for just about every car tested at the ring, the simple facts are that FACTORY DRIVERS ARE QUICK.

The differences in indie test and factory claimed test for the GTR don't fall in line with other cars of the segment, the gap between what Nissan is claiming and what indie test can actually accomplish is far wider. If you do some simple research and drop the fanboy shtick for a second, you'd quickly realize that.

[footie]

Originally Posted by NewSong

The differences in indie test and factory claimed test for the GTR don't fall in line with other cars of the segment, the gap between what Nissan is claiming and what indie test can actually accomplish is far wider. If you do some simple research and drop the fanboy shtick for a second, you'd quickly realize that.

I might know a little bit more about factory times than you think. And no the GTR times, especially the latest isn't far away from the average between factory and press/pro testers. Take Audi as another example where factory and press have a wide gap, the RS4 did 7:58 compared to Horst's 8:09 and the R8 4.2 lapped in 7:54 compared to 8:01, the new 5.2 has lap in 7:38 with normal street rubber, it will be interesting to see how close Horst get with it. The LP560 is close on 20sec off what it has lapped in factory hands.

You never seem to take track conditions into account for lack of pace, a 10 second variation isn't unheard of, especially when the lap is over 7 minutes long.

If you look you will find quite a few examples, and most are awd.

BTW, keep up the Fanboy stuff, it's most amusing.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by footie

You never seem to take track conditions into account for lack of pace, a 10 second variation isn't unheard of, especially when the lap is over 7 minutes long.

Track conditions or not, 25 seconds is a huge gap, and separates cars of different segments usually.

The RS4 is not a good example because it wasn't scrutinized as much as the GTR and had very few independent test. You can't base anything off 1-2 independent test. Anyone who has taken a college level science course will tell you that.

The GTR on the otherhand has over half a dozen independent test that fail miserably to get even close to 7:29, Nissan's SLOWEST claim. That's very telling.

[jeremyc74]

The reality is that Nissan was running specially prepped cars when they set that time, and that's why no one in a production vehicle has been able to come close to it.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The reality is that Nissan was running specially prepped cars when they set that time, and that's why no one in a production vehicle has been able to come close to it.

This guy is being logical.

[MisterSkiMask]

Nissans claims become suspicious to me when you start looking at power, weight, and tires.

If you look at Porsche’s numbers for the GT2, GT3 and Turbo it makes sense, it also makes sense that the ZR1 and Viper ACR are faster, more tire, more power, less weight. Then you look at that pig of a Nissan with their stock power out put and it just makes no sense to me.

[footie]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

Nissans claims become suspicious to me when you start looking at power, weight, and tires.

If you look at Porsche’s numbers for the GT2, GT3 and Turbo it makes sense, it also makes sense that the ZR1 and Viper ACR are faster, more tire, more power, less weight. Then you look at that pig of a Nissan with their stock power out put and it just makes no sense to me.

You are right in questioning the power of the GTR because it close it 10% more than official figures. As for the tyres vs weight debate, sorry to say it but it's a lot more complicated than you think and most of this has to do with awd.

But by all means, if everyone feels happier in the belief that the GTR isn't somehow as good as it really is then be my guest. Just remember to keep a close eye on the rear view mirror because it will be by you and gone in a flash.

[Epik]

"The Series II car has a few tweaks from the first-generation car, including 5 more horsepower, an upgraded suspension, stickier tires and a revised gearbox. The car the traversed the Nurburgring in 7 minutes 27 seconds was bone stock, save for optional Rays forged alloys from the SpecV model." [http://www.leftlanenews.com/nissan-g...e-to-727.html]

The 7:27 time was the new base GTR with V-Spec wheels.

Nissan's time for the original was 7:29 and HVS posted a 7:38 after Porsche called Nissan out saying under 7:56 was impossible without modification.

9 seconds seems plausible to find that perfect day and perfect lap. Especially after hundreds and hundreds of laps.

Who knows, HVS may get a faster lap before it's published.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by footie

You are right in questioning the power of the GTR because it close it 10% more than official figures. As for the tyres vs weight debate, sorry to say it but it's a lot more complicated than you think and most of this has to do with awd.

But by all means, if everyone feels happier in the belief that the GTR isn't somehow as good as it really is then be my guest. Just remember to keep a close eye on the rear view mirror because it will be by you and gone in a flash.

I know it isn't a simple formula, and chassis tuning makes a HUGE difference, and awd vs rwd etc. all I am saying is that if you compare the raw numbers, Nissans claims are suspicious, that is all.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I know it isn't a simple formula, and chassis tuning makes a HUGE difference, and awd vs rwd etc. all I am saying is that if you compare the raw numbers, Nissans claims are suspicious, that is all.

You'd be right to be suspicious too since no one besides Nissan can make those times.

[vAnt826]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

The reality is that Nissan was running specially prepped cars when they set that time, and that's why no one in a production vehicle has been able to come close to it.

Did you guys forget that the .27 lap was done with spectators from media and Porsche?

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by vAnt826

Did you guys forget that the .27 lap was done with spectators from media and Porsche?

Did they have Porsche engineers check the car too?

[footie]

Originally Posted by NewSong

Did they have Porsche engineers check the car too?

Considering how quiet Porsche have been since that track session when the 7:27 lap was done I'm guessing that they finally conceeded that Nissan were indeed being truthful.

But then you will always get some who will never admit to the truth.

[NewSong]

Porsche just commented about the time not being truthful a month ago.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by vAnt826

Did you guys forget that the .27 lap was done with spectators from media and Porsche?

And did any of them get to take a boost reading while the car was on the track?

Some of you guys amaze me. We all know how easy it is to take an N54 from 300Hp to well over 450Hp, yet you all seem to think that Nissan isn't capable of doing the same thing, or that they're being truthful. They're KNOWN for running prepped cars for the slobbering media idiots to time!

That car could be sitting at the factory boost levels when it leaves the pits, and with the flip of a switch be at more than 600Hp, and well all know it.

If the car was stock, then why is it that NO ONE else can even come close to the same times? Are you suggesting that Nissan has the greatest Ring driver in the world? Come on now!

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

If the car was stock, then why is it that NO ONE else can even come close to the same times? Are you suggesting that Nissan has the greatest Ring driver in the world? Come on now!

Or that maybe each GTR should come with a Nissan factory driver so you can get the "true" performance out of your car.