Porsche accuses Nissan GT-R of cheating the 'Ring

[MajorTom]

What kind of tests were you talking about? I'm not necessarily defending the GTR or R8 but I think it's fair to state that the Audi weighs a good bit less than the GTR and on a small tight course where power doesn't come into play it'll be very close in performance. Power doesn't necessarily have a great influence on the outcome in a tiny course.

The GTR is impressive. Like I said in my other post, in handling tests where power and handling come into play, the GTR was right up near the top. The only cars that competed were cars like the 100k+ R8, the 100k plus Viper ACR, the who knows how expensive Gallardo LP560-4 and the over 200k Aston DB9. The ACR is probably the closest in price, but it has a lot more power and aero aids and weighs about 500 pounds less. The R8 weighs about two or three hundred pounds less and costs about 25 to 40k more depending on options. The Aston and Lamborghini are both priced astronomically and the thing still competes with them. Granted it's not as luxurious as they are... It's impressive.



The thing everyone seems to be missing is what any person who really drives these cars can tell you that the GTR, while making you look like Michael Schumacher, is boring to drive. There's no satisfaction of throwing it out to the edge and then doing your best to reel it back in. For lack of a better term, there's no soul. The numbers are rightly impressive given that it's a near 2 ton car with only 480hp that can compete with cars that cost exponentially more and weigh hundreds of pounds less. But engineering and computers can do that, but to make the car entertaining to drive is another story.

I have a quote that sums up how I feel about cars like the GTR

Do you want to drive the machine? Or do you want the machine to drive you?

It seems for the car to be fun, the computer aids would have to be in the background where you don't feel them working. It seems like they control the car just as much as the driver in the GTR.

[SS4EVER]

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

Price withstanding.. IF you could even get one much less at base price.. yea right.. PHX had 4 delivered.... 4
3 of which were bought buy the dealer owners as personal cars. So.. how many Z06's were available .. in one month?

Yea godzilla of bargins... more like the the fountain of youth.. great dream, but unattainable.

The GTR won't be fetching for MSRP, I predict for at least 6-12 more months if not longer... That's all dependent on how many Nissan builds and allots to dealers in the U.S.

I actually saw one already on the road. It's probably the only one I'll see for quite a while. Sad to think I've seen more ZR1's on the road already then I have GTR's but I also live in Michigan.

Can't say for all dealers especially dealers in small towns, but out by me the Chevy dealers have like at least 4 if not more ZO6's sitting on their lots. The C6 ZO6 has also been on the market since 2006. And there's definitely more ZO6's allotted to each dealer now. However the ZR1 is going to be like the GTR, at least for the first year it's on the market. I don't think the dealers are going to have more than 1 ZR1 at their dealerships for quite a while...

But like I said, maybe in a year or two after all the hype dies down we'll start seeing more GTR's around and probably going for sticker depending on how many Nissan brings stateside...

But something else to think about think of the super-exotics, like Ferrari's and Lambo's that are stateside. The model could have been out for 2 or more years, but it won't be going for sticker, the buyers have to literally outbid eachother to buy the car. All has to do with exclusivity.

[Oracle]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=126453
I beleive that is the link im referring to, and yes i know that the GT-R is running with the big boys who cost twice the price, other than the Corvette or the Viper. I am not disputing it is a great car, just the "greatest car ever" that the fanbase likes to make you think it is, and nissan is helping that immage with the things like severely underpricing the value of the car to put it in a segment it doesnt belong. that would be like nissan chopping 15k off a GT3 and saying its here to compete with the viper on price but hey it can do everything better. not a bad strategy, but your basically forcing the public to compare apples to oranges. thats bad for competition, much like the Prius development assistance is bad for the competition. im not getting hurt that they are playing dirty, i just find it funny that its coming back to bite them with the whole price increase AND prosche testing their products for them. once again, great car, just not the greatest car the magazines have made it to be. its advertising at its finest.

[headpunter]

the funny thing is i told my friend that when i finish my zl1 i want it to be as fast or faster then a r35 GT-R and now that has gotten that much easier.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by MajorTom

The car did well in the lighting lap of car and driver

However, it was only 6 seconds ahead of an LS3 powered corvette with a suspension upgrade on a ~3 min lap. Doesn't seem like it should be 13s ahead of a Z06 on a ~7:30 lap of the ring?

[MajorTom]

I said in my post that I didn't think it was that credible.

But since you put it that way... The Z06 did the lightning lap in 2:58. Compare that to the GTR doing it in 2:55. A 3 second difference. The 'ring is almost 3 times as long as the track they do the lightning lap on. 12.9 miles v 4.2 miles. To assume the Nissan driver had a better run and the Z06 had a few problems isn't unreasonable. Meaning it's possible given your reasoning.

So it's sounding more and more feasible as we do the math your way.


If you take into account that the drivers driving for Car and Driver weren't pros, then it's possible the cars would've performed much better so that math isn't really very credible.

[DGthe3]

You bring up a good point. The drivers weren't pro's and the GTR is a more forgiving car than the Corvette is. So a great driver might get an extra second or two out of the GTR but they would get a couple more out of the Corvette or Viper.

[MajorTom]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You bring up a good point. The drivers weren't pro's and the GTR is a more forgiving car than the Corvette is. So a great driver might get an extra second or two out of the GTR but they would get a couple more out of the Corvette or Viper.

You're correct. The GTR is a more forgiving car. And offers some very sticky tires as no cost options as opposed to the runflats that everyone complains about on the Z06. You put some stickier tires on the Z06 (it wouldn't be stock then) and it'd no doubt suck a few seconds off the time of it's Nurburgring time. So if that were the case, and it knocked off 5 or 6 seconds, with the Nissan being a much more forgiving car, as you said, would it still be as incredible? If with it's higher technology and being easier to drive fast it still beat the Z06's faster time would it still be hard to believe?

I'm not saying I think the GTR was completely stock, but the more points you bring up, the stronger the GTRs case sounds. Although Porsche having such a difficult time replicating it is likely a nail in the coffin.

[Congoman775]

I love Porsche.

Leave it to the Germains to pull the BS card first

[MajorTom]

Originally Posted by Congoman775

I love Porsche.

Leave it to the Germains to pull the BS card first

Yeah, good for them for giving it a go themselves.


The only thing is, a few weeks ago I read an article on edmonds where they talked with a group of porsche test drivers and such and Porsche drivers pretty much discredtied the 'ring as a credible number by which to guage performance. They said that the way companies measure often differ. The point at which they start the clock differs, speed from the start line, the end point and all that. Now seeing them call BS on it seems a bit contradictory. Although these differing stories could also be different people speaking for Porsche. I know one in the first argument was Walter Rohl, Porsche's test driver from the recorded run in the 997 Turbo.

[headpunter]

Originally Posted by Congoman775

I love Porsche.

Leave it to the Germains to pull the BS card first

chevrolet called the BS card a long time ago

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by MajorTom

You're correct. The GTR is a more forgiving car. And offers some very sticky tires as no cost options as opposed to the runflats that everyone complains about on the Z06. You put some stickier tires on the Z06 (it wouldn't be stock then) and it'd no doubt suck a few seconds off the time of it's Nurburgring time. So if that were the case, and it knocked off 5 or 6 seconds, with the Nissan being a much more forgiving car, as you said, would it still be as incredible? If with it's higher technology and being easier to drive fast it still beat the Z06's faster time would it still be hard to believe?

I'm not saying I think the GTR was completely stock, but the more points you bring up, the stronger the GTRs case sounds. Although Porsche having such a difficult time replicating it is likely a nail in the coffin.

You lost me. It was pro drivers on the ring (or close enough), but magazine guys who are a bit better than average at car and driver. What I was trying to say was that if the LL at car and driver had pros in the seat, the GTR may have gotten down to say 2:53, . . . and the Z06 from last year would be about the same. The other thing to consider is environmental conditions, namely temperature and humidity. So if one car did it when it was hot and muggy while the other had cool clear air that could cost them a couple seconds per lap.

[headpunter]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You lost me. It was pro drivers on the ring (or close enough), but magazine guys who are a bit better than average at car and driver. What I was trying to say was that if the LL at car and driver had pros in the seat, the GTR may have gotten down to say 2:53, . . . and the Z06 from last year would be about the same. The other thing to consider is environmental conditions, namely temperature and humidity. So if one car did it when it was hot and muggy while the other had cool clear air that could cost them a couple seconds per lap.

the crazy thing is that with the length of the lap small things turn into big (whole seconds) time gains

[MajorTom]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You lost me. It was pro drivers on the ring (or close enough), but magazine guys who are a bit better than average at car and driver. What I was trying to say was that if the LL at car and driver had pros in the seat, the GTR may have gotten down to say 2:53, . . . and the Z06 from last year would be about the same. The other thing to consider is environmental conditions, namely temperature and humidity. So if one car did it when it was hot and muggy while the other had cool clear air that could cost them a couple seconds per lap.

I understood what you were saying. You're claiming that the GTR with a pro driver would be at best able to lop 2 seconds off its' time. And the Z06 would magically knock off 5 seconds on a 3 minute lap. The cars lapping within a few seconds of eachother is pretty indicative of their performance in the hands of one driver. So given equal drivers I would still believe the GTR would beat the Z06 by a comparable time. I can't believe I'm arguing in favor of the GTR against the Z06 because it's not my type of car. But I just feel compelled to call out the inconsistency in your logic. While I understand that rear wheel drive is harder to manage, and I bet a pro driver would be able to do better. But road and track had pro drivers drive these cars around 4 different types of tracks and the GTR beat the Z06 by quite a bit. Z06 wasn't even near the top. Pro drivers on 4 tracks.

What I was getting at with my nurburgring comment was that given that you admit the Nissan is easy to drive fast.... Let's assume for a second that with comparable tires to the Dunlops the GTR comes with were used. In Vette sizes of course. And the Vette went again. The argument is that the Vette would be able to go faster because everyone complains about the stock tires of the Vette. Lets say grippier tires knock off 5 or 6 seconds off it's lap. If you consider the GTR has a bunch of electronic gadgetry and AWD grip at it's disposal, is it terribly hard to believe that it could compete?

I'm just saying that you're giving this edge to the Corvette. Clearly after all this testing the GTR is the easier car to drive fast. I dunno about 13 seconds a lap faster, but faster nonetheless.

My theory though, is that the GTR they used to set that time had a bit more power than 480hp. Which wouldn't be hard to pull off.