2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

  • Thread starter emad
  • 3,050 comments
  • 151,839 views
A GTP thread doesn't count, you really should show exactly where you got your information from.
All of those times are proven.

Actually yes you should have to, like I said if you require something for other you should have to prove the same claims.
I should have to prove his claims that a car is not stock when it runs a lap time? Is that what you are saying? He said that the time I quoted was not run with a stock car. And I have to look to see if what he is saying is true?
 
No I'm saying you are a hypocrite, you tell someone to prove x yet you don't do it yourself.
 



You yourself posted a lap of 8:01 from what you say was a stock R33. I can't imagine derestricting it and putting it on slicks would shave only 2 seconds off the time.
Furthermore, if the new GT-R proto was on slicks, why oh why was it exactly as fast as the far less powerful R32 GT-R that you posted to also be on slicks?




the one from the BMI video was knowing to have been modifed(slicks and polycarbonate(sp) windows and a upped boost IIRC) cant remember where i read that as it was a few years ago but if you think im lieing then thats up to you.


No, because I know how fickle the Nurburgring can be in places. I understand your suspicions, but not your dead-set pursuit of proving Nissan to be up to something.


not trying to prove that nissan was up to something they did that for me.



To which multiple people posted articles that said the contrary.
Besides, if Nissan offers cut slicks as an option as you contend they have in the past, then none of your argument has any relevance whatsoever.


to which people posted "LEAKED" information you forgot that which means there is a chance it might be false,where as i posted an article with an interview with the test driver who did the lap.if nissan offered cut slicks then fair play to them i would believe it but they dont.
 
again did you research? im guessing not as if you did you would have discovered that the car for that time was admitted to being destricted(with the rumour that it was running slicks).autocar in 1997 took a STOCK (restricted 155mph and on street tyres) with a pro driver and couldnt get anything better than 8:30,

Taking the Restrictor off does not mean the car is no longer stock or that data is no longer valid. Carrera GTs in America have one for around 200Mph. The ones in Europe though, do not. So, which is stock, and which isn't? They're both built to the same statistics. If that was true, the Veyron and McLaren would not be the fastest production vehicles, and the M5 & M6 times on the 'Ring would no longer be valid. But they are.
Restrictors are just a "safety" device put on/off by the factory. Why was it, when I added the Performance PKG then to a 335i, the company added, "Car is Restricted to 165Mph" yet the base car says "Restricted to 155Mph"? Obviously, BMW seems to recognize it stock either way.

As for the time, you must be joking. That was what really got the Skyline up on the platform. It's suspected there might have been a suspension and brake setup change, but there's no record of that to prove it. The car was just restricted, and nothing more.

BTW, this is the man responsible for the R33 Record-breaking lap (though there's a 7:46 XJ220 time set before)
fahrer-schoysmann2.jpg

This fellow, Dirk Schoysman, at the time was a race driver who specifically raced Nissan Skylines.
 
Its so funny because it is false. The R33 (which remember, is the bad one) did under 8 minutes. Stock, and not NiSMO.

Except that it wasnt stock :dunce:

We have already been over the R33 GT-R's time. The same applies with a certain subaru impreza that claimed to do the 'ring in under 8 mins stock.

And what did both car's have in common with each other? Should I give you a hint?

Really you should know better, its not like car manufacturers can be trusted, the only source we can trust is auto motor and sport. The only way to pretty much ensure each car was tested fair.

The SL65 AMG is also a top heavy convertible that weighs about 500 pounds more. Without RWD. Which kinda blows apart your argument about, you know, PWR.

How does it blow my argument of power when the car has 600hp? Actually just checking my source that merc only made it round the 'ring under 8 mins by the AMG engineers. Once it was ready for the public it was quite a bit slower.

Omigod Japanese beating the worlds best? Blasphemy. And I wonder, if the GT-R is a "Porky GT car" then why in hell are you referencing a Mercedes anything? And why isn't Porsche on the rack? And regardless, if holdenhsvgtr's laptime claims are true, than 7:38 for this car on hand cut slicks would be very slow. Why are you so deadset against the GT-R's time? Because it beat a car that it has way superior weight dynamics to? The Porsche in itself is a wonder to be as fast as it is. The fact that a car can be faster yet heavier shouldn't be too amazing considering the weight distribution differences alone.

1. The R33 GT-R is uncapable of such a time stock by a large margin.
2. The NSX-R time I wont comment on untill I know of what year it is, but most likely it will join subaru and nissan on the list of absurd manufacturer claims.

Im not deadset against anything, I just know that the car isnt capable.

So I expect you to not bring up cheater slicks again, if what holdenhsvgtr said is true:

Its not, might be an option on a track ready version but not the ones we are talking about. Even then it doesnt matter, you could stick cut slicks on anything.

At the Nurburgring? No it doesn't. That could be fricking changing the power distribution and making the car understeer less for all we know. You cannot prove any of you allegations. You can raise questions, yes. And I understand your point. But you cannot change these suspicions into fact without undeniable proof, which is something you simply do not have. At all.

Wishful thinking really, or rather inept engineers.

No I'm saying you are a hypocrite, you tell someone to prove x yet you don't do it yourself.
Agreed
 
and in the spirt of things.

Carrera GTs in America have one for around 200Mph. The ones in Europe though, do not.
proof?

Why was it, when I added the Performance PKG then to a 335i, the company added, "Car is Restricted to 165Mph" yet the base car says "Restricted to 155Mph"?
proof?

the M5 & M6 times on the 'Ring would no longer be valid. But they are.
they have been tested with and without restricters and the company stick with the restricted time.

BTW, this is the man responsible for the R33 Record-breaking lap (though there's a 7:46 XJ220 time set before)
fahrer-schoysmann2.jpg

This fellow, Dirk Schoysman, at the time was race driver who specifically raced Nissan Skylines.
yes i know about him i have several videos of him driving mk1 octavia vrs's around the nurburgring,but with the R33 lap most people reference it to the BMI lap in which the car was claimed to be modified.
 
No I'm saying you are a hypocrite, you tell someone to prove x yet you don't do it yourself.
I have to prove his assertion!? How in hell does that make me a hypocrite? He said that the 7:59 second time was with a modified car. He said I should have done my research to prove that it was non-stock. Why in hell do I have to do that? I shouldn't have to prove x. If I make a statement, then go ahead and call me on the proof. But I should NOT have to prove his statements. If that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes, that is not my problem.

holdenhsvgtr
the one from the BMI video was knowing to have been modifed(slicks and polycarbonate(sp) windows and a upped boost IIRC) cant remember where i read that as it was a few years ago but if you think im lieing then thats up to you.
I don't think you are lying. But unless you can prove it, it has no place in this discussion. Furthermore, if the 7:59 time was done on semi-slicks, what difference does it make if you could buy the car with semi-slicks?

holdenhsvgtr
not trying to prove that nissan was up to something they did that for me.
No, they did not. Your first post against the time was that they used slicks. Not cut slicks, but slicks. Furthermore, your proof that they used cut slicks is contradicted by the company themselves. You keep centering on how the 7:38 is the average time the car has been getting, but it is merely the best the car has been getting. It is averaging 7:50s.

holdenhsvgtr
if nissan offered cut slicks then fair play to them i would believe it but they dont.
Considering they haven't even announced pricing yet, that is hardly an assumption one can make.
 
I don't think you are lying. But unless you can prove it, it has no place in this discussion. Furthermore, if the 7:59 time was done on semi-slicks, what difference does it make if you could buy the car with semi-slicks?
you cant buy it on semi slicks,show me one you can buy with semi slicks? i said i couldnt remember where i read it and if you chose to say im lieing thats your choice.

No, they did not. Your first post against the time was that they used slicks. Not cut slicks, but slicks. Furthermore, your proof that they used cut slicks is contradicted by the company themselves. You keep centering on how the 7:38 is the average time the car has been getting, but it is merely the best the car has been getting. It is averaging 7:40s.
i did not say they were slicks i said gotta love slicks,maybe you assumed i was saying it was on slicks but i didnt.In that he is talking about a dry track in reference to slicks not a damp track which the track was at the time of the video and again there is still the fact that Mizunois quoted in saying that it was on cut slicks.
 
Except that it wasnt stock :dunce:
Prove it. I hardly believe a company would be able to get away with saying that "our car is the first production vehicle to lap the 'Ring in under 8:00" without everyone jumping on them to see if it was true and if the car was modified in some way. If you can come up with something to negate the fact that the R33 was the first one to do it, than I'll be all ears.

And what did both car's have in common with each other? Should I give you a hint?
Why don't you then.

Really you should know better, its not like car manufacturers can be trusted, the only source we can trust is auto motor and sport.
So how can we tell the Porsche 911 Turbo can do a 7:43 time? I believe that was a manufacturer test. As was the Carrera GT time.

How does it blow my argument of power when the car has 600hp?
Because by your own logic, the 500-600 pounds or so that the SL probably has on the GT-R makes the PWR roughly equal, I'm guessing.

Actually just checking my source that merc only made it round the 'ring under 8 mins by the AMG engineers. Once it was ready for the public it was quite a bit slower.
Which proves what, again? That the 4500 pound golf bag carrying hardtop convertible was slower when they made it so the old people it was designed for wouldn't shatter their hips on bumps? It doesn't mean that it weighed any less, or that it had any more power.

1. The R33 GT-R is uncapable of such a time stock by a large margin.
Again, prove it.

2. The NSX-R time I wont comment on untill I know of what year it is, but most likely it will join subaru and nissan on the list of absurd manufacturer claims.
Oh, and prove it.

Im not deadset against anything, I just know that the car isnt capable.
Which is your main problem. PWR DOES NOT MATTER. Look at the PWR for some of the cars on that list. They jump all over the place. Just look near the 911 Turbo, for chrissakes. You don't seem to understand that there are several mitigating factors for a track as large as the 'Ring that are not power and weight. The 911 Turbo is rear engine for god sakes. Anything with better weight distribution, which the GT-R most probably has, has a better chance at a faster lap. And then there is things like spring rate, and chassis stiffness. Or the GT-Rs' lower coefficient of drag. You look at the PWR and dismiss it, which is a comically silly thing to do as many, many cars have proven in the past.

Even then it doesnt matter, you could stick cut slicks on anything.
Except when it comes from the factory like that, it makes it a stock car just as much as paying the factory to remove a speed limiter does. So it very much does matter.

Wishful thinking really, or rather inept engineers.
Hilarious. So you think, on a 13 mile track, that even small changes wouldn't lead to big changes in time?
 
Double post because I can't be bothered.

you cant buy it on semi slicks,show me one you can buy with semi slicks? i said i couldnt remember where i read it and if you chose to say im lieing thats your choice.
Ah. I just figured out that your assertion was vague and unfunny sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion.

i did not say they were slicks i said gotta love slicks,maybe you assumed i was saying it was on slicks but i didnt.In that he is talking about a dry track in reference to slicks not a damp track which the track was at the time of the video and
Perhaps you could use punctuation, because I have no clue what you are saying.

again there is still the fact that Mizunois quoted in saying that it was on cut slicks.
No there isn't. I posted a link that said that the car wasn't on cut slicks. You still haven't posted the link that your assertion that it was came from. At best you have contrasting quotes.
 
Typo. 7:50s.
so confidently explain how its sudden at least 12 seconds faster? in the article you posted they give no reason for it being that fast(no mechanical changes) all they said was a different driver yet they didnt say his name(why not?) and if he was the main tester(as it says) why didnt he get faster and faster as he learned the track?

so why did as before nissan make a big deal about it doing 7:55's if they had a driver all along that could do it in the 7:30's?
 
so confidently explain how its sudden at least 12 seconds faster?
Because an average and a best are two different things, maybe?


in the article you posted they give no reason for it being that fast(no mechanical changes)
Which is a double edged sword on multiple levels for both my and your arguments.

all they said was a different driver yet they didnt say his name(why not?)
Toshio Suzuki, which it says.

and if he was the main tester(as it says) why didnt he get faster and faster as he learned the track?
He needs to beat 7:30 to prove a 7:38? And perhaps he has been getting better and better, which would explain this new lap time.

so why did as before nissan make a big deal about it doing 7:55's if they had a driver all along that could do it in the 7:30's?
Perhaps it was a mechanical change. Or perhaps it was the main driver getting better and better. Or perhaps they merely underestimated the car's capabilities because of its PWR. But it doesn't really matter now, does it?
 
Toshio Suzuki, which it says.
no i meant in reference to his "right hand man" which they dont say who that is.

Which is a double edged sword on multiple levels for both my and your arguments.
maybe so but in the article i posted he added to it being on cut slicks.wouldnt that be a very very strong indiction for the sudden 17 second difference compared to the 7:55 that it was perviously timed at?
 
no i meant in reference to his "right hand man" which they dont say who that is.
What difference does that make?

maybe so but in the article i posted he added to it being on cut slicks.wouldnt that be a very very strong indiction for the sudden 17 second difference compared to the 7:55 that it was perviously timed at?
Not when he says in the article I posted he says that it would be faster if it was on cut slicks.
 
Okay, this is Nissans's Official Press Kit for GT-R. Anything you want to know, you can find from there, even the gear ratios, nitrogen filled RE070 runflat tyres that were designed for GT-R. And the leaked information indeed is "leaked information", thus unreliable. I'm sure that sooner or later we get "official" laptime done by biased German magazine, since Nissan and it's engineers are LIARS. :ouch: I've been on half a dozen different forums and everywhere there's the same whine that GT-R can't possibly do this or that time because this and that has so much more power and less weight. now, a quote from the press release.

The new Nissan GT-R is a muscular, distinctive looking car. Chunky, edgy, wide shouldered, ground-hugging and flat-sided, it is also one of the most aerodynamic cars in the world (Cd 0.27) as well as being one of the most distinctive.

But I guess that 0.27Cd is irrelevant since Nissan is a liar.

Overt functional touches include the kink in the rear pillar - 'it is highly distinctive and helps rear airflow,' says Nakamura, 'and it also gives the GT-R a really unusual roof line, which I like.' The side front fender air scoops also improve the car's aero performance by improving airflow around the tires, are highly distinctive and almost animalistic. They also help cool the big-chested twin-turbo V6. Nakamura also feels those deep flat sides are highly functional. 'They're flat like a well toned stomach but they also help when judging the car's width and they're very aerodynamic.'

Good aerodynamics was a key requirement for the high-speed Nissan GT-R. 'Designing a car is always a balance between engineering and aesthetics. But with the Nissan GT-R we had very little conflict. We knew this car had to be Nissan's technological showcase. Our designers worked very closely with the aerodynamicists to ensure excellent air flow and good downforce essential for a car that has such a high top speed and such excellent high speed stability.'

The Nissan GT-R undertook about 5000 km (3107 miles)of high-speed testing at the Nürburgring, and was consistently achieving lap times of just under 8 minutes.
Extensive testing was also undertaken at Japan's demanding Sendai track that, like the Nürburgring, features undulations, a mix of fast and slow corners, and is regarded as an especially taxing and difficult course. Most racing circuits were avoided. 'They were too easy,' says Kazutoshi Mizuno, chief vehicle engineer for the Nissan GT-R.

Engine
• VR-series twin-turbocharged 3.8-liter V6.
• 480 hp @ 6,800 rpm. 430 lb-ft torque @ 3,200–5,200 rpm.
• Dual overhead camshafts with variable intake-valve timing.
• Cast aluminum cylinder block with high-endurance/low-friction plasma-sprayed bores.
• IHI twin turbochargers, one per cylinder bank.
• Pressurized lubrication system with thermostatically controlled cooling.
Drivetrain
• ATTESA ET-S All-Wheel Drive (AWD) with independent rear-mounted transaxle integrating transmission, differential and AWD transfer case.
• Rigid, lightweight carbon-composite driveshaft between engine and transaxle.
• Electronic traction control plus 1.5-way mechanically locking rear differential.
• Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC-R) with three driver-selectable settings: Normal (for daily driving, controls brakes and engine output), R-Mode (for ultimate performance, utilizes AWD torque distribution for additional vehicle stability) and Off (driver does not want the help of the system).
• Hill Start Assist prevents rollback when starting on an incline.
DisclaimerVDC-R cannot prevent accidents due to abrupt steering, carelessness, or dangerous driving techniques. Always drive safely.

Transmission
• 6-speed Dual Clutch Transmission with three driver-selectable modes: Normal (for maximum smoothness and efficiency), Snow (for gentler starting and shifting on slippery surfaces), and R mode (for maximum performance with fastest shifts).
• Fully automatic shifting or full sequential manual control via gearshift or steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters.
• Dual clutch design changes gears in less than 0.5 second (0.2 second in R mode).
• Downshift Rev Matching (DRM).
• Predictive pre-shift control (in R mode) based on throttle position, vehicle speed, braking and other information.
Wheels and Tires
• 20 x 9.5" (front) and 20 x 10.5" (rear) super-lightweight forged-aluminum wheels with Gunmetal Gray finish.
• Exclusively developed nitrogen-filled Bridgestone® RE070A high-capacity run-flat summer tires, 255/40R20 front and 285/35R20 rear.
• Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS).
• Optional exclusively developed nitrogen-filled Dunlop® run-flat all-season tires, 255/40R20 front and 285/35R20 rear (includes Bright Silver wheels).
Brakes
• Brembo® 4-wheel disc brakes with 4-wheel Antilock Braking System (ABS), Brake Assist, Electronic Brakeforce Distribution and Preview Braking.
• Two-piece floating-rotor 15-inch front and rear discs with diamond-pattern internal ventilation.
• 6-piston front/4-piston rear monoblock calipers.
Steering
• Rack-and-pinion steering with vehicle-speed-sensitive power assist.
• 2.6 steering-wheel turns lock-to-lock.
Suspension
• 4-wheel independent suspension with Bilstein® DampTronic system with three driver-selectable modes: Normal/Sport (for automatic electronic control of damping), Comfort (for maximum ride comfort), and R mode (engages maximum damping rate for high-performance cornering).
• Electronically controlled variable-rate shock absorbers. High-accuracy progressive-rate coil springs.
• Front double-wishbone/rear multi-link configuration with aluminum members and rigid aluminum subframes.
• Hollow front and rear stabilizer bars.
Body/Chassis
• Exclusive Premium Midship platform with jig-welded hybrid unibody.
• Aluminum hood, trunk and door skins. Die-cast aluminum door structures.
• Carbon-reinforced front crossmember/radiator support.

Under the hood, the Nissan GT-R features an all-new 3.8-litre twin turbo V6 “VR38” engine, featuring plasma-sprayed bores and a special twin-turbo exhaust manifold system. A secondary air management system enables the newly designed powerplant to provide approximately 40kg/m of torque during ordinary low-rev driving, which gives an optimum air-fuel ratio for around-town efficiency and helps the Nissan GT-R meet ultra-low emission vehicle (U-LEV) standards in Japan.

The Nissan GT-R’s new engine produces 480PS (353kW) at 6400rpm and maximum torque of 60kgm (588Nm) from 3200 to 5200rpm. Putting the power to the ground is an all-new GR6-type dual clutch transmission, with paddle shifting and a Borg Warner six-plate dual clutch for direct control.

Suspension duties are handled through a special Bilstein DampTronic*1 system, which utilizes all pertinent vehicle information to provide appropriate damping forces for all situations and helps maintain a high level of control for straight-line driving, cornering, and braking.

Braking is essential for a daily-driven supercar and the GT-R features large Brembo full-floating drilled rotors, low steel high stiffness brake pads and Brembo mono block six-piston front and four-piston rear calipers, which in combination minimize fade and provide stable braking. Run-flat tires, exclusively designed for use on the Nissan GT-R, balance high grip and all-weather capabilities and a comfortable ride in all driving situations. The tires are designed to maintain structure for 80km of travel at 80 km/h, while still providing an acceptable level of performance.

The front fenders express power and stability, while the “aero-blades” on the fenders’ leading edges provide optimum airflow around the tires and along the body. The scoop in the fenders’ trailing edges assists in providing front downforce and optimization of side airflow. The aggressive front end, with a large hood budge and single air intake, provides a sophisticated style as well as undisturbed airflow for power and cooling.

Wheels and Tires:

* Base GT-R comes with unnamed alloys and Dunlop Sport tires
* Black and Premium editions come with Rays wheels and Bridgestone RE070s (run flat).
* Tires size: 255/40 front, 285/35 rear


Brakes:

* Rotors: 15.2 inch ventilated cross-drilled
* Calipers: 6-piston forged Brembo front
* Calipers: 4-piston forged Brembo rear

Drivetrain:

* There is no Manual transmission option
* Twin clutch six-speed paddle shifted automatic (one clutch handles 1/3/5, the other handles 2/4/6)
* BorgWarner triple-cone synchronizers on all gears
* Shifts take 0.2 seconds
* Carbon fiber driveshaft
* Torque split front to rear is 50/50 under 25mph, then shifts to 40/60 under normal conditions, then 2/98 under hard acceleration

and parts of these info came from www.nagtroc.com. if this isn't enough, I have to tell you that you have to do some of the work yourself.

Bridgestone Potenza RE070 reviews

This tyre is OEM tyre for Impreza WRX STi '07. would it be that way if they couldn't perform?
 
Not when he says in the article I posted he says that it would be faster if it was on cut slicks.
if you read it that was,from what i made out, with a completely dry track.

The Nissan GT-R undertook about 5000 km (3107 miles)of high-speed testing at the Nürburgring, and was consistently achieving lap times of just under 8 minutes.
Extensive testing was also undertaken at Japan's demanding Sendai track that, like the Nürburgring, features undulations, a mix of fast and slow corners, and is regarded as an especially taxing and difficult course. Most racing circuits were avoided. 'They were too easy,' says Kazutoshi Mizuno, chief vehicle engineer for the Nissan GT-R.
so 22 seconds under 8 minutes is "just" under 8 minutes.Doubt it i would say 5 seconds under 8 minutes is "just" but not 22 and one of the big deals about the car is the 7:38 time,yet it is not meantioned ONCE in the press realease? again doesnt add up,other companies would be raving over that time especially if you were building a supercar slayer.
 
so 22 seconds under 8 minutes is "just" under 8 minutes.Doubt it i would say 5 seconds under 8 minutes is "just" but not 22
Because, once again, "consistently" means "usually" and "on average." The "consistently just under 8 minutes" goes together nicely with the "car will average 7:50s." It could also mean what the average driver may get. "Consistently" does not mean "best."


and one of the big deals about the car is the 7:38 time,yet it is not meantioned ONCE in the press realease? again doesnt add up,other companies would be raving over that time especially if you were building a supercar slayer.
Perhaps because the Press Kit page hasn't been updated since the 21st of October? And both of the articles in this thread have been made in the past week?
 
You non-believers, think about driving that 5000 km on the Nürburgring. Would you be pushing it at the very limits every lap or would you drive at 95% speed? That difference between "just under 8 minutes" and the record lap - around 20 seconds - is only four percent of the total lap time. In other words, if the best driver takes a certain corner at 100 km/h, you drive through it at 96 km/h, you've lost the four percent needed for the record lap. Lose that four percent in every corner and the difference is right there. Clear?

Once upon a time there was a man who bettered the lap record of the old Nordschleife by nearly 30 seconds in one race from the year before. By just driving faster. That man was some old Argentinian named Juan Manuel Fangio. While the Nissan test drivers probably can't match Fangio in driving skill, the difference needed in the cornering speeds is so small that even the 20 seconds' difference can easily be tracked down to a great driver, a great run and great conditions.

But I have a feeling that whatever we'll say, no matter how well we prove it, some people seem have decided that the GT-R can't lap the Nordschleife in 7'38. And ignorance is something we can't fix. :indiff:
 
I'd say that consistently means a time what average driver could achieve.

and this is directly from Carlos Ghosn't transcript that he did read at TMS..

*click*

whole thing

cant access it?

Because, once again, "consistently" means "usually" and "on average." The "consistently just under 8 minutes" goes together nicely with the "car will average 7:50s." It could also mean what the average driver may get. "Consistently" does not mean "best."


but it doesnt say the average driver,therefore you would be believed in thinking that the test drivers where on average doing just under 8 minutes but again i cant prove that as you cant prove it is in reference to the average person.


You non-believers, think about driving that 5000 km on the Nürburgring. Would you be pushing it at the very limits every lap or would you drive at 95% speed? That difference between "just under 8 minutes" and the record lap - around 20 seconds - is only four percent of the total lap time. In other words, if the best driver takes a certain corner at 100 km/h, you drive through it at 96 km/h, you've lost the four percent needed for the record lap. Lose that four percent in every corner and the difference is right there. Clear?

Once upon a time there was a man who bettered the lap record of the old Nordschleife by nearly 30 seconds in one race from the year before. By just driving faster. That man was some old Argentinian named Juan Manuel Fangio. While the Nissan test drivers probably can't match Fangio in driving skill, the difference needed in the cornering speeds is so small that even the 20 seconds' difference can easily be tracked down to a great driver, a great run and great conditions.

But I have a feeling that whatever we'll say, no matter how well we prove it, some people seem have decided that the GT-R can't lap the Nordschleife in 7'38. And ignorance is something we can't fix. :indiff:

At the time it lapped the 7:55 it was being chased by a 997 turbo to see how it could be compared against it,so from what i make of that it was no doubt being driven at its limits.personal i have made the decided that the stock showroom car cannot do 7:38 from the fact there is far too many inconscients(sp) in the car featured and to pervious reports and statements and times made about the car.if you think thats ignorance thats your choice and opinion.
 
You know what I will just wait for the auto motor und sport guys to thoroughly test this car and then we will all know that nissan either:

A: Nissan are liars
B: Nissan achieved the 7 min 38 lap time on cut slicks.


As for the bridgestone tires evos wear them also, and the 400hp FQ400 MR edition sure as hell doesnt lap under 8 mins when wearing them, and it has a better PWR.
 
First things first, people need to stop referring to the GT-R as a "Muscle Car." It is not, it never will be, no matter how many times they call it that...

Secondly, while I am indeed skeptical of the 7:38 lap time, that doesn't mean that it was completely impossible. I personally would prefer to have Nissan give us the detailed differences between that test car and the one that we will have on the streets, but more likely than not, they would prefer to keep that to themselves. It is my guess that its the Japan-only Evo model, probably with semi-slicks, and a factory driver behind the wheel... While certainly legit, it doesn't necessarily reflect the performance of the "regular" GT-Rs that the rest of the world will receive.

Still, wait for the ZR-1 and the GT2 to take a lap and I'm almost certain they won't have a problem tearing the GT-R a new one...
 
B: Nissan achieved the 7 min 38 lap time on cut slicks.
No matter how many times you say it, by your logic it doesn't add up. By any logic it doesn't add up, simply because of what holdenhsvgtr said.
Oh, and you forgot:
C: They say it is worse than it is because Auto und Motor Sport is a German magazine that will be reviewing a car designed to attack a German icon.
D: None of the above.

As for the bridgestone tires evos wear them also, and the 400hp FQ400 MR edition sure as hell doesnt lap under 8 mins when wearing them, and it has a better PWR.
Because PWR is everything amirite guys?
 
No matter how many times you say it, by your logic it doesn't add up. By any logic it doesn't add up, simply because of what holdenhsvgtr said.
so again the logic of a car running 7:50's constantly then suddenly does a 7:38 does add up?

the GT2 to take a lap and I'm almost certain they won't have a problem tearing the GT-R a new one...

already done :)

In an interview with Porsche and 911 World, Walter Rohl confirms he got 7:29 out of the 997 GT2 on an industry test session, despite nearly hitting an Audi at 310kph through Tiergarten
 
and in the spirt of things.


proof?
Do it yourself since you ask everyone here for proof and fail to ever do it yourself. Go google the Official Porsche Document on the car. It describes, among the different lights, and engine setup, what the differences are between ROW-spec and US-Spec. In speed, the govenor on US-Spec models limits the car to 197Mph. ROW-Spec get 205Mph.
Go to your own dealer, and have them print the documents out yourself cause I'm certainly not.
yes i know about him i have several videos of him driving mk1 octavia vrs's around the nurburgring,but with the R33 lap most people reference it to the BMI lap in which the car was claimed to be modified.
Yes, claimed, yet is there anyone who can verify that?
 
so again the logic of a car running 7:50's constantly then suddenly does a 7:38 does add up?
It makes far more sense than a car today on slick tires matching the lap time of its 18 year old, far less powerful, front heavy and skinny tired grandfather, which was also on slick tires. Of course, I'm sure what Greycap said didn't even register to you, so it makes little difference regardless.
 
Back