2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

He said two different things:

1. The track was not dry. He can get 7:30 if the track was completely dry with the tires already on the car for the partially wet 7:38 lap.
   
2. He also said that the car could get under 7:30 with cut slick tires. This was said in comparison to him claiming the car could get around 7:30 without slick tires if it was totally dry.

So, a crash course in logic:
Let Under 7:30 with slicks equal "A"
Let 7:30 without slicks equal "B"
Let the 7:38 time be "C"

"A" would require slicks. "B" does not. B = C in this case, so the 7:38 time was without slicks just as the supposed 7:30 dry time would be.



He only brought up slicks to say that 7:30 could be done without them if the track was totally dry, but to go underneath 7:30 would require them. The way his whole statement is phrased tells you that the 7:38 time had the same tires as the proposed 7:30 time, which dictates that they are not slicks because he said the 7:30 time could be done without slicks.

dont need any crash course in logic at all thanks.

but if you wanna go that way and didnt have blinkers on.you would consider that what he said was that the 7:38 was done on cut slicks on a damp track (you have yet to prove otherwise or that it was on RE070's as you claim again proof? )
if the track was dry on cut slicks it would have done around 7:30 with full slicks needed to go under 7:30.

in fact look at the video villainpl posted,at 27 mins the car goes round in 7:39 the guy (who im guessing is the project manager?) walks up to them as they are taking the tyres off......lovely set of road tyres those were.......although i did think road tyres came with thread.......

 

[Tornado]

dont need any crash course in logic at all thanks.

You clearly don't understand it, so I was merely trying to help.

you have yet to prove otherwise or that it was on RE070's as you claim again proof?

This is the last time I will say it: Take a course in logic, or stop bringing it up.
He said the car could do 7:30 on street tires. I know this is the case because he said it could go faster than that if slicks were applied. He said both phrases in a way that also said that the 7:38 lap was done on street tires, which is even ignoring that if that hadn't been the case his statement would have been meaningless. You don't have to say something outright to have it be said.

You only real source has been proven to be at the very least a faulty one, and by no means proof of anything other than conflicting statements. You have nothing to stand on so far but that one quote, so unless you can come up with something better you should pick a battle that you can win and not merely stalemate on. The fact remains that we don't know enough about too many major things between the GT-R and 997 Turbo (downforce, weight distribution, effect of drag on high speed acceleration, etc.) for there to be any conclusive gesture either way. So drop it.

Both this and your Ford GT argument have shown me without a doubt that you take one shred of evidence and support it vehemently no matter how much evidence to the contrary, no matter how much your evidence is withered away, no matter what logic dictates.

Furthermore, for someone who continues to bring up uncited and unproven statements even now, you telling me to prove that the GT-R is on a particular brand of tires is a laughable proposition. And it is certainly something you cannot prove to the contrary anyways. If you want to get the last word in, go ahead. I, however, am done.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

You clearly don't understand it, so I was merely trying to help.

no your not as you arent taking on what other people are saying

This is the last time I will say it: Take a course in logic, or stop bringing it up.

no thanks i like my current course too much 👍

He said the car could do 7:30 on street tires.

where?

that the 7:38 lap was done on street tires,

no he said it was done on cut slicks or did you not read that part? still waiting on your proof that it was on street tyres or cant you find it? you may also have to remember the 7:38 lap was damp and that he said that it would do 7:30 in the dry with cut slicks.i think there is an 8 second difference between a damp and dry track on cut slicks over 12 miles dont you?

Furthermore, for someone who continues to bring up uncited and unproven statements even now, you telling me to prove that the GT-R is on a particular brand of tires is a laughable proposition. And it is certainly something you cannot prove to the contrary anyways. If you want to get the last word in, go ahead. I, however, am done.

which you had done as the debate had moved onto something different yet you then brung this back up?

 

[Tornado]

where?

You don't have to say something outright to have it be said.

no he said it was done on cut slicks or did you not read that part?

Quote where he said that in the article I posted.

that he said that it would do 7:30 in the dry with cut slicks.

And that too.

i think there is an 8 second difference between a damp and dry track on cut slicks over 12 miles dont you?

Well, when that 13 mile track is only damp in a couple of spots, I'd say 8 seconds is a very reasonable difference. Of course, when you "hydroplane" off into a wall the same might not apply.

still waiting on your proof that it was on street tyres or cant you find it?

When the proof is in logic, and you don't understand logic, I guess you will be waiting a long time.

which you had done as the debate had moved onto something different yet you then brung this back up?

Being off of the internet for a week because of school work is not the same as ending the discussion of a topic.

 

[Joey D]

There was no reason to bring the tire thing back up, there is no proof so why the hell are you two arguing over it? As far as I know you guys are arguing over a bloody low quality video.

Anyways am I the only one who doesn't this the racing version looks like anything special? I don't see the beauty in it, it just looks like a normal race cars. I'll be curious to see how it performs though, I assume it's racing in the JGTC?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Quote where he said that in the article I posted.

he said it in the article i posted or didnt you read that?

only damp in a couple of spots

hmmm

a lap in 7 minutes, 38 seconds on a partially wet circuit

and watching the video it was fairly damp or "wet" almost all of the way round the track hence there would be an 8 second difference.Now if you through logic out of the window and bring maths into it,if you wanna go with pop culture, top gear say that the difference between a a damp and a dry lap on thier track is 2 seconds which is 1.8 miles long.The ring is 12.9 miles long so take 12.9 divide that by 1.8 and you get the difference between them which rounded up is 7.2 . now take that and multiply that by 2 and you get 14.4 which would have been the difference (roughly) is 14.4 seconds between a damp lap and a dry lap,ok so far?

now your saying that it was damp in a couple of places which means the 14.4 is out of the window but if it was only damp in a couple of places then i could easily expect the car to lose 4 seconds in each place which is where the 8 seconds comes from

 

[Tornado]

he said it in the article i posted or didnt you read that?

And I never said he didn't, and yes I did. However, my article states that it did not have cut slicks on it, which is my point. As it can't be proven either way, we might as well drop it as Joey said until we know more.

 

[YSSMAN]

There was no reason to bring the tire thing back up, there is no proof so why the hell are you two arguing over it? As far as I know you guys are arguing over a bloody low quality video.

We crossed that bridge days ago... I'm over it. All of us should be...

Anyways am I the only one who doesn't this the racing version looks like anything special? I don't see the beauty in it, it just looks like a normal race cars. I'll be curious to see how it performs though, I assume it's racing in the JGTC?

I think its called Super-GT now, but yes I understand your point. Honestly, it doesn't look that much different compared to the 350Z car that preceded it, and I do in fact wonder if its running the V8 instead of the TTV6. My guess is that it should perform quite well; I honestly don't even know what runs in Super-GT anymore... The NSX and Supra are both dead, so that leaves what? The S2000 and the Lexus IS?

===

And YES, I would rather have a Corvette than an R8. True that the Audi does indeed look better than the 'Vette, but it isn't faster, it costs $30K more, and I hear the manual transmission isn't too good of an idea in that car. I'll take the more "pure" experience of a Z06, please.

This does not by any means say that I completely dislike the R8, I just don't like it as much as the Corvette or 911...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I do in fact wonder if its running the V8 instead of the TTV6.

I think all GT500 cars run 3.4 litre V8's.

EDIT: Oh also, the NSX is still running in Super GT. It doesn't fit in anymore it seems rather outdated and rather than the Toyota Supra the Lexus SC430 is ran instead.

 

[Jim Prower]

I think its called Super-GT now, but yes I understand your point. Honestly, it doesn't look that much different compared to the 350Z car that preceded it, and I do in fact wonder if its running the V8 instead of the TTV6. My guess is that it should perform quite well; I honestly don't even know what runs in Super-GT anymore... The NSX and Supra are both dead, so that leaves what? The S2000 and the Lexus IS?

1. It is SuperGT
2. Honda still runs the NSX, at least, thru 2007
3. the Toyota entry is...the Lexus SC430. (yes, Believe it, though, it's much better looking than the road car.)

 

[YSSMAN]

I had no idea that the "Soarer" was even associated with "performance" whatsoever... I'd be willing to bet that the GT-R wouldn't have too much of a problem eating the competition alive. Although, wasn't someone running a Ford GT and a Corvette at one time as well? I'm probably mistaken... I'm probably thinking of the US Trans-Am series?

 

[forza2.0]

I cant wait till the car is independantly tested and tornado is proved wrong.

 

[Jim Prower]

I had no idea that the "Soarer" was even associated with "performance" whatsoever... I'd be willing to bet that the GT-R wouldn't have too much of a problem eating the competition alive. Although, wasn't someone running a Ford GT and a Corvette at one time as well? I'm probably mistaken... I'm probably thinking of the US Trans-Am series?

They're more or less Shillouette cars these days, so all the GT500 cars should be about even.

By the way, Brad, you're not gonna like this. I've got the latest Motor Trend right here in front of me. plastered in big, bold lettering across the top of a photo of the GT-R?

CORVETTE-KILLER

The numbers (Manufacturer's)

0-60: 3.5s
Quarter: 11.7 @ 149.1
skidpad: .99g
top speed (goverened) 186, (ungoverned) 192.6
hp: 480
torque: 443 lb/ft
Power/weight: (Target) 8.1 lb/hp/3.7 kg/hp

Price: $60-80,000. U.S.

I'll wait for comparos, first. my guess is that it'll be "Too numb" compared to the 911 Turbo, and thus lose...except that it costs that much less.

 

[Tornado]

I cant wait till the car is independantly tested and tornado is proved wrong.

I love how you aren't taken this personally. I would say I wish it was personally tested and you were are proven wrong, but I both don't particularly care about the car's real speed or your shortsightedness regarding it.

 

[///M-Spec]

CORVETTE-KILLER

Quarter: 11.7 @ 149.1

A 149 trap?? Jim, you sure that's not a typo? That's higher than even a Koenigsegg CCR or Veyron.

A 119 mph trap sounds more realistic.

(waits patiently for someone to tell me I'm a narrow minded elitist snob because I question whether or not the GT-R may actually outrun a Veyron )


M

 

[Tornado]

149?

 

[Jim Prower]

A 149 trap?? Jim, you sure that's not a typo? That's higher than even a Koenigsegg CCR or Veyron.

A 119 mph trap sounds more realistic.

(waits patiently for someone to tell me I'm a narrow minded elitist snob because I question whether or not the GT-R may actually outrun a Veyron )


M

Lemme check the magazine again...

Well, that's what they said. better break out your angry letter-writing machines....

(send all mail to Motortrend.com. not me.)

 

[exigeracer]

The freaking GT-R news are littering every board I'm on it seems! It's all scrapping about numbers, as well. It's pretty typical though, they release a car with such a strong existing younger fanbase and nobody can seem to get settled down about freaking numbers.

I'm pretty complacent regarding this car though. It sits in a category where the actual market for people spending that sort of money are smart enough to consider cheaper, older cars and tune them to suit their own tastes and driving preferences. But that brings us back to the original problem with this argument, that everyone interested with this car is more driven to compare numbers and paper racing than actually looking at the bigger picture.

 

[opendriver]

A 149 trap?? Jim, you sure that's not a typo? That's higher than even a Koenigsegg CCR or Veyron.

A 119 mph trap sounds more realistic.

(waits patiently for someone to tell me I'm a narrow minded elitist snob because I question whether or not the GT-R may actually outrun a Veyron )


M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_GT-R

The wiki says 118, so yeah, that sounds about right

I want one.

 

[Omnis]

A 149 trap?? Jim, you sure that's not a typo? That's higher than even a Koenigsegg CCR or Veyron.

A 119 mph trap sounds more realistic.

(waits patiently for someone to tell me I'm a narrow minded elitist snob because I question whether or not the GT-R may actually outrun a Veyron )


M

Wow, Jim is right:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0712_2008_nissan_gt_r/technology_specs.html

Mizuno's numbers are impressive: 3.5 seconds to 60 mph (in 110-degree weather, no less), 11.7 seconds to the quarter mile at a t rap speed of 149.1 mph. He says the GT-R will tear up the skidpad to the tune of 0.99 g -- even on 20-inch run flats -- and stop from 60 mph in only 111.5 feet. Top speed is targeted at 192.6 mph, though it will be governed to 186 mph. Notable, however, iss that while these stats beat his 911 Turbo numbers and those recorded by other magazines, they don't beat ours.

Does seem kind of strange, but if it hauls that much ass then that's a huge 👍.

 

[///M-Spec]

Wow, Jim is right:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0712_2008_nissan_gt_r/technology_specs.html

Does seem kind of strange, but if it hauls that much ass then that's a huge 👍.

Jim may be right in quoting Motor Trend correctly.

But I'm highly skeptical of this number being the correct one.

Stop and consider that a Bugatti Veyron (1006 hp/4,160 lbs) has been clocked doing the 1320 in 10.2 sec @ 143 mph.

..and the Koenigsegg CCR (806 hp/2601 lbs) does it in 10.5 @145 mph.

Now Motor Trend wants us to believe the GT-R (running "only" in the high 11s and has a far worse power/weight ratio) is actually GAINING on both cars at the end of 1320???

I don't think so. I say its a typo. The lighter and similarly powered 997 Turbo traps in the 120-118 range. The only other explaination is Nissan has under rated the motor by about 600 hp.


M

 

[Omnis]

Jim may be right in quoting Motor Trend correctly.

But I'm highly skeptical of this number being the correct one.

Stop and consider that a Bugatti Veyron (1006 hp/4,160 lbs) has been clocked doing the 1320 in 10.2 sec @ 143 mph.

..and the Koenigsegg CCR (806 hp/2601 lbs) does it in 10.5 @145 mph.

Now Motor Trend wants us to believe the GT-R (running "only" in the high 11s and has a far worse power/weight ratio) is actually GAINING on both cars at the end of 1320???

I don't think so. I say its a typo. The lighter and similarly powered 997 Turbo traps in the 120-118 range. The only other explaination is Nissan has under rated the motor by about 600 hp.


M

Absolutely. Someone should keep an eye out for Motortrend and see if they correct the error, though.

 

[Onikaze]

Clearly Nissan put in a Flux Capacitor, and through some strange Time Warp it seems to be trapping at 149 Mph, when in reality it's doing 88 Mph and preparing to go back in time.

 

[Jim Prower]

Clearly Nissan put in a Flux Capacitor, and through some strange Time Warp it seems to be trapping at 149 Mph, when in reality it's doing 88 Mph and preparing to go back in time.

I'd be weary about the durability of that mule, then. The only material that I can think of that would stand up to that sort of abuse is Stainless Steel.

So I quoted an incorrect number. Big whoop. It's Motor Trend's fault, and, frankly, I didn't think about if the number made sense or not. which makes that part of it my fault.

 

[YSSMAN]

By the way, Brad, you're not gonna like this. I've got the latest Motor Trend right here in front of me. plastered in big, bold lettering across the top of a photo of the GT-R?

CORVETTE-KILLER

The numbers (Manufacturer's)

0-60: 3.5s
Quarter: 11.7 @ 149.1
skidpad: .99g
top speed (goverened) 186, (ungoverned) 192.6
hp: 480
torque: 443 lb/ft
Power/weight: (Target) 8.1 lb/hp/3.7 kg/hp

Price: $60-80,000. U.S.

I guess I'm not all that worried?

The Corvette is still cheaper, the performance is actually pretty similar, and I can have the Chevy serviced almost anywhere in the country... I'm almost willing to bet that Nissan "Pulls a Volkswagen" and only lets the GT-R be serviced at certain dealers.

Me? Corvette FTW! No stupid computers, no AWD, just the skill of your two feet and the hands on the steering wheel...

 

[Joey D]

I can't see how it will be a Corvette killer, I doubt Nissan will even sell it in high enough amounts to affect the sales of the Vette here in the states. Also they are speced similar.

According to this site: http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/c6/2006/z06/2006z06perf.html

Corvette Z06 per GM specs
0-60: 3.5 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.5 @ 127.1
Top Speed: 198mph
Lat. Accel: 1.05g's
Power to weight: 3151lbs./505hp = 6.24

The Z06 is around the same price and gives you slightly better performance so I whole heartedly disagree with the Corvette killer statement.

 

[Tornado]

The Corvette's top speed is at redline, yes?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

The Corvette's top speed is at redline, yes?

in 5th iirc,6th is too long for it to pull.

 

[YSSMAN]

Top speed, yes. It runs out of room (in terms of RPMs) at the end of 5th Gear at 198 MPH, as 6th Gear is far too tall, and usually slows the car down.

The ZR-1 should, presumably, dip a bit further into the 200 MPH range...

 

[nightkid86]

The GTR does however have 2 more seats and a larger trunk.

I love the corvette, and being a huge nissan fan I also love the GTR