This is funny... After so many independent tests.... From Top Gear to Motortrend, you should be able to see that this nissan not only beats 911 turbo and Z06 on the track, but it is also equally fast to the F430 Scuderia. Upcoming versions like V-spec will match Ferrari Enzo on the track.
If anyone disagrees with me, all he has to do is to do a research on the subject. Even Senna "junior" admitted that this Nissan is superior to 911 turbo...
This is funny... After so many independent tests.... From Top Gear to Motortrend, you should be able to see that this nissan not only beats 911 turbo and Z06 on the track, but it is also equally fast to the F430 Scuderia. Upcoming versions like V-spec will match Ferrari Enzo on the track.
If anyone disagrees with me, all he has to do is to do a research on the subject. Even Senna "junior" admitted that this Nissan is superior to 911 turbo...
I think most people are willing to concede the GT-R can be quicker around a track than the 911 Turbo. Here's an article that reported on a head-to-head between the two cars:
We'll start by saying that it's not exactly hearsay, but it's not anywhere near official, either. Take one 997 Porsche Turbo that has lapped the 'Ring in 7:40, practically fast enough to form one of those Stargate SG-1 vortexes behind it. Then take one Nissan GT-R, benchmarked against that Porsche Turbo, and flog that baby around the 'Ring as fast as possible. Add a few reporters on hand with stopwatches. And when the GT-R flies past the finish line, the reporters discover those stopwatches have come to rest after just 7:38. So the story is that the GT-R is two seconds faster than the 911 Turbo on the Nurburgring. And the Skyline in the photos doesn't even look to be the mad-gunner EVO-spec version. If that's the case -- and yes, that's a big if -- and say you allow for the inaccuracy of handheld stopwatches and add two seconds, so the GT-R did the same time as the Porsche Turbo... Well, we're not crowning a victor, or speculating about the whats and whys, or what will happen when the real timed laps in production versions are done... we're just saying that's pretty good. That's all.
But if you do the research, you'll see there is no evidence whatsoever that the GT-R should be able to run a 7:29 time which is 11 seconds quicker around the 'ring than the Turbo. That time difference doesn't just mean the GT-R is quicker than the Turbo, that means it is in a completely different class of car, and nobody believes that. If you can find one other track comparison that shows the same type of difference between the Turbo and the GT-R, then I'll believe the 7:29 time. The problem is, nobody has been able to duplicate this kind of superiority on any track, at any time, with any driver. Anytime you have a result that nobody else can duplicate, it becomes pretty shaky. Especially when it was done by the factory that built the car.
__________________
Mike
2006 E60 M5 Silverstone II/Silverstone/Aluminum, All Options, 35% tint, Aluminum Pedals, Valentine V1 and Passport 9500i Hardwired, Blinder Xtreme M40, Michelin PS2's on 20 inch BBS RS-GT's, Winter Pirelli Sottozeros on OEM 19 inch wheels, Resonator Delete, Charcoal Filters Removed, Eibach Springs and Spacers, Active Autowerks ECU, BMC Filters, RPI Air Intakes, Evosport Pulley. Retired from track duty 10/08. Dinan diff replaced with OEM at my cost due to failure at 56,000 miles.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolverine For This Useful Post:
.... The problem is, nobody has been able to duplicate this kind of superiority on any track, at any time, with any driver. Anytime you have a result that nobody else can duplicate, it becomes pretty shaky.
Again we see evidence that seriously questions the GT-R's time. I can't stop thinking that this test was carried out on a damp track where an AWD car should have a major advantage. The outcome on a dry nurburgring should leave an even bigger gap in favour for the GT2.
I call absolute bullshit on Nissan
__________________
2005 BMW M5, it's not on order, it's here!
Sepang Bronze/Sepang Leather/Aluminium - It's in the garage!! And not so much on the road, stupid clutch!!
To clear something up that has been bothering me; my name is Gustav (hello board leader ), my dad's name is Morten. I post 99% of all posts under the MortenDK account - so call me Gustav
Last edited by MortenDK; 30th December 2008 at 23:14.
But if you do the research, you'll see there is no evidence whatsoever that the GT-R should be able to run a 7:29 time which is 11 seconds quicker around the 'ring than the Turbo. That time difference doesn't just mean the GT-R is quicker than the Turbo, that means it is in a completely different class of car, and nobody believes that. If you can find one other track comparison that shows the same type of difference between the Turbo and the GT-R, then I'll believe the 7:29 time. The problem is, nobody has been able to duplicate this kind of superiority on any track, at any time, with any driver. Anytime you have a result that nobody else can duplicate, it becomes pretty shaky. Especially when it was done by the factory that built the car.
7:29 is 11 seconds faster than 7:40, just under a 2.4% difference.
UK's CAR magazine: 82.2 sec vs 83.2 sec around Rockingham, despite this: "I played it slightly safer with the Nissan, driving within the factory safety settings and never feeling the traction control trigger." 1.2% difference
Road & Track magazine: 1:56.9 vs 2:02.1 around Buttonwilow (configuration 13), a 4.3% difference
Those are direct comparisons, same day, same driver, same conditions.
There are a bunch of ones that are close (same conditions, same driver, different days).
There are many more (which you can find on thecarlounge.com). However, a 2.4% track time difference isn't outside of the realm of possibility, depending on the track, the conditions, and the drivers.
7:29 is 11 seconds faster than 7:40, just under a 2.4% difference.
UK's CAR magazine: 82.2 sec vs 83.2 sec around Rockingham, despite this: "I played it slightly safer with the Nissan, driving within the factory safety settings and never feeling the traction control trigger." 1.2% difference
Road & Track magazine: 1:56.9 vs 2:02.1 around Buttonwilow (configuration 13), a 4.3% difference
Those are direct comparisons, same day, same driver, same conditions.
There are a bunch of ones that are close (same conditions, same driver, different days).
There are many more (which you can find on thecarlounge.com). However, a 2.4% track time difference isn't outside of the realm of possibility, depending on the track, the conditions, and the drivers.
Although good observations this can't exactly be used as an argument. The bigger population (in our case lenght of track/test) the more accurate statistics. So a 460 seconds nurburgring time is a way better indication of a car's capabilities around a track than a 83 seconds lap time somewhere else.
It'd be like saying a survey where you asked 10 people is as good as a survey where you asked a 1000 people.
__________________
2005 BMW M5, it's not on order, it's here!
Sepang Bronze/Sepang Leather/Aluminium - It's in the garage!! And not so much on the road, stupid clutch!!
To clear something up that has been bothering me; my name is Gustav (hello board leader ), my dad's name is Morten. I post 99% of all posts under the MortenDK account - so call me Gustav
Last edited by MortenDK; 30th December 2008 at 23:24.
Although good observations this can't exactly be used as an argument. The bigger population (in our case lenght of track/test) the more accurate statistics. So a 460 seconds nurburgring time is a way better indication of a car's capabilities around a track than a 83 seconds lap time somewhere else.
It'd be like saying a survey where you asked 10 people is as good as a survey where you asked a 1000 people.
While I would agree with you that the longer the track the smaller the deviation, that's a relatively small effect, IMHO.
Any track over 1 minute run multiple times is going to give you a pretty clear picture of what's going on. If they only ran it once and spit out a result, then you may have a point.
The bigger issue is WHAT KIND of track best shows off a car's capabilities. Some tracks are better for high HP cars, others are tight and technical. Some test braking performance more than others.
It's funny how perception changes in an instant.
Unless this issue is resolved by Nissan, I think I'll pass on this vehicle.
Given the current market, I can get a CLK 63 Black Series for mid 80K.
Whoa, just caught this. Has the Black Series really dropped that much? I haven't kept up with the market, but there is no way I would buy a GTR over that.
__________________
Dinan/AA intake
Dinan Mass Airflow meters
Koni adjustables
Dinan Springs
Dinan Rear Sway
GC Camber Plates
Supersprint x pipe
Racing Dynamics exhaust
Dinan Stage 3 software
Hella Euro Clears
HID fogs
Umnitza ICE
Carbon Fiber overlay interior
Rear rims mounted on front
While I would agree with you that the longer the track the smaller the deviation, that's a relatively small effect, IMHO.
Any track over 1 minute run multiple times is going to give you a pretty clear picture of what's going on. If they only ran it once and spit out a result, then you may have a point.
The bigger issue is WHAT KIND of track best shows off a car's capabilities. Some tracks are better for high HP cars, others are tight and technical. Some test braking performance more than others.
Yeah, but isn't nurburgring a pretty good all-around indication? It has quite a few long straights but that would only favour high horsepower cars, which makes it even stranger the GT-R out-performs the GT2 according to Nissan.
__________________
2005 BMW M5, it's not on order, it's here!
Sepang Bronze/Sepang Leather/Aluminium - It's in the garage!! And not so much on the road, stupid clutch!!
To clear something up that has been bothering me; my name is Gustav (hello board leader ), my dad's name is Morten. I post 99% of all posts under the MortenDK account - so call me Gustav
), my dad's name is Morten. I post 99% of all posts under the MortenDK account - so call me Gustav 
Linear Mode
