2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Kent]

I seem to remember Nissan's lap being on a partially wet track as well.
Not sure what all of this means for Nissan but I'm sure 7'50 is still a great time. 👍
Further, I'm interested to see just what trim was used in that lap and where that trim falls into the price scale.
Something tells me that we are going to find that the GT-R used for these laps was a more expensive GT-R than the base model used to establish the 70K price.

In any case, this is still a great car.

 

[forza2.0]

Actually I have just realised this whole tire thing is irrelevant. I thought tires such as the PS2 were semi racing tires due to what sport auto say, but it doesnt really matter if they are or not. I just thought that unless the GTR was fitted with extreme high grip tires such as the M3 CSL and the RS4 (which I considered as semi racing) was whilst tested, the GTR would struggle to do a 7 min 50 lap and it has taken one of the 'ring specialists to do that exact time. Therefore I would say my assumptions at heart are correct, and the exact tire classification of the RE070's is irrelavant. All that matters is that the tires are of similiar grade to the cars I compared the vehicle to which I thought had semi racing tires (but are infact extreme tires)

 

[Jim Prower]

But it's still priced lower and is more practical than a 911 Turbo.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Jim, I read your location as Petoria, and wondered why it was IL and not RI .

I don't see how changing the argument after the fact makes you correct. Now you are saying the classification of the tires doesn't matter, but your entire argument was based on it. And again, it didn't "struggle", if the course was wet one can only assume a lower time is out there. Or, even using your logic, give it a few years like the 996 GT3 and it'll be running even lower times.

M-Spec, understandable, and personally, I never said that without a doubt Nissan's 7'38 time was fact. I just thought that there was no hard evidence to support either side, and thought it odd people would use something as stupid as a PWR ratio as "fact". Given the length of the track, under better weather conditions (it is the end of November now), I think the GT-R could probably dip into the lower half of the 7'40's. I mean, with how long the 'Ring is, that'd only be shaving a fraction of a second off each turn, heh.

Woops, forgot; as Poverty2.0 here is using Sport Auto as the 'Ring lap-time bible, I suppose the claims from a while back still hold true that this is indeed faster than a 911 Turbo, and as Jim points out, still more practical and cheaper. Sounds like a winner to me!

 

[Greycap]

Actually I have just realised this whole tire thing is irrelevant. I thought tires such as the PS2 were semi racing tires due to what sport auto say, but it doesnt really matter if they are or not. I just thought that unless the GTR was fitted with extreme high grip tires such as the M3 CSL and the RS4 (which I considered as semi racing) was whilst tested, the GTR would struggle to do a 7 min 50 lap and it has taken one of the 'ring specialists to do that exact time. Therefore I would say my assumptions at heart are correct, and the exact tire classification of the RE070's is irrelavant. All that matters is that the tires are of similiar grade to the cars I compared the vehicle to which I thought had semi racing tires (but are infact extreme tires)

Well, not as irrelevant as you think.

The tyres on the GT-R are classed as ultra-high performance street tyres, as ///M-Spec says...

The Potenza RE070 is classified as an Ultra-High Performance tire, which is similar to a Max Performance tire like the RE050A Pole Position, Pilot Sport PS2 or Eagle F1 GS-D3. These tires are LESS aggressive than the so called "Extreme Performance" tires like the RE-01R or ADVAN Neova AD07.

...while the M3 CSL and Porsche 911 GT3 are running on semi racing tyres.

All of these STREET tires are not at all comparable to a semi-legal Competition Tire like a Pilot Sport Cup or ADVAN A048. For one, they are delivered with only the MINIMUM tread depth to be road legal. A full street tire like the RE070 is delivered with more.

More over, the RE070 has a UTQG treadwear rating of 140. Meanwhile a Sport Cup has a rating of 80 and ADVAN A048 has a rating of 60.

As much as you may hate to face it, it now really seems that the GT-R is still one (or even two, depending on the classification) tyre class down and already giving the German cars a run for their money. It didn't need semi racing tyres to run that 7'50.

 

[forza2.0]

Well, no.

The tyres on the GT-R are classed as ultra-high performance street tyres, as ///M-Spec says...

Which looking at the treadwear rating is wront. RE070's are better than GSD3's. I would know my car has GSD3's and a friend of mine as RE070's. No comparison, the RE070's are far superior.
RE070's are extreme tires. People in the UK wouldnt be paying twice as much for them if they were inferior to my GSD3's

...while the M3 CSL and Porsche 911 GT3 are running on semi racing tyres.

What tire does the GT3 run?

As much as you may hate to face it, it now really seems that the GT-R is still one tyre class down and already giving the German cars a run for their money. It didn't need semi racing tyres to run that 7'50.

The GTR is wearing same class tires as the Aston V8 vantage and the RS4 that sportauto both said were semi racing tires hence me thinking that the GTR was using semi racing tires as they are the same class.

It really makes the RS4 time more impressive now. 7 mins 58, only 8 secs slower than the more powerful skyline.

Would you now care to explain us all how those "horrid runflats" turned into semi racing tyres as soon as it was proved that the car is fast on them?

No because in testing porsche got their car round the 'ring in much under 7 mins 50 but we only count sport auto times

I don't see how changing the argument after the fact makes you correct. Now you are saying the classification of the tires doesn't matter, but your entire argument was based on it. And again, it didn't "struggle", if the course was wet one can only assume a lower time is out there. Or, even using your logic, give it a few years like the 996 GT3 and it'll be running even lower times.

You have completely missed the point.

I looked at the original skyline time of 7 mins 38 and then looked at the sport auto 'ring list. I noticed that all the cars with a similair pwr that got around 7 mins 40 give or take 10 secs were wearing what sport auto classified as semi racing tires. I therefore predicted that the GTR would struggle to do the ring in under 7 mins 50 unless fitted with semi racing tires.

It not turns out that all the cars listed on the sport auto list with semi racing tires werent even using real semi racing tires. They are all either extreme or ultra tires going by the site one of the mods linked to. Therefore tire classification is irrelevant as such. It still stands that I predicted that unless the GTR was wearing tyres of the same grade as some of its competition it would struggle to do under 7 mins 50 and I was correct.

It took a 'ring specialist to do 7 mins 50. A normal or average racing driver would not do such a quick lap as he would not know the track as well.

 

[Jim Prower]

Jim, I read your location as Petoria, and wondered why it was IL and not RI

PEORIA. NOT Petoria. Check Caterpillar's Corporate Website, see where their headquarters are. Also home to L. R. Nelson (Sprinklers and hoses) and Getz Fire Extinguishers. also about 1/2 hour from the former Diamond Star Motors (Now Mistubishi,) home of the Eclipse.

(I'm gonna have to use a CAT avatar now, thanks.)

Glad you agree on the GT-R, though.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

That's what I was getting at

The tire argument doesn't really work anyways if you're going off the "standard" info for them. Taken from Evo:

"Tyres for the GT-R are specially developed run-flats available from both Dunlop and Bridgestone. These will only be sold via the High Performance Centres and will not be supplied to conventional tyre fitters, which might be a pain for owners when travelling far afield."

I'd assume if they're specially developed for the GT-R they have different characteristics than the normal ones. The RS4 time isn't impressive; I'd hope a 400+ hp, apparently sporty car could nail it in under 8. The NSX-R could manage.

Oddly enough, Evo quotes that same old 7'38 time. Though they add that it's specifically a 7'38.54. I too am curious what kind of spec the car was running for that.

 

[Jim Prower]

And this is what happens when you tell that to a guy who doesn't watch Family Guy and is dyed CAT yellow. Hometown pride...

Ah, well. I like the CAT theme, anyway.

 

[Greycap]

What tire does the GT3 run?

Michelin Pilot Sport Cups. The bottom of the third page of this .pdf.

It not turns out that all the cars listed on the sport auto list with semi racing tires werent even using real semi racing tires. They are all either extreme or ultra tires going by the site one of the mods linked to. Therefore tire classification is irrelevant as such. It still stands that I predicted that unless the GTR was wearing tyres of the same grade as some of its competition it would struggle to do under 7 mins 50 and I was correct.

All? Even those wearing Pilot Sport Cups, like the Carrera GT or the 911 GT3?

You never predicted anything about the similar tyre grades. You predicted that it would struggle to get under 7'50 on semi racing tyres. You were very sure about it. As it has been proved now, among the other things you were, you were also wrong. And it's pretty obvious that you're trying to cover it.

It took a 'ring specialist to do 7 mins 50. A normal or average racing driver would not do such a quick lap as he would not know the track as well.

Quite a surprise. Do you really think all the other cars were driven by drivers that were Nordschleife newcomers?

This is getting hopeless once again. It has now been proved by an independent source that the GT-R is capable of running neck to neck with the German cars, while being shod with inferior tyres. By using semi racing tyres, it might be able to beat them. Is it really that hard to admit that Nissan has made a fast car?

 

[///M-Spec]

Fair enough. And then we also have to consider, that the weather conditions and differences in drivers styles and experience are also causing noticeable differences in lap performance.

Not one of us knows the skill level of the Nissan test driver. Maybe he's just so good that the time was real. Maybe not. Is it possible? Definitely yes.

It is POSSIBLE that Horst von Saurma is a staggering 12 seconds off the pace of Mr. Mystery Nissan Test Driver, whoever he/she is.

But I doubt it. Von Saurma's time of 7:32 (Sport Auto 01/04) is only 4 seconds off Walter Rohl's time of 7:28 in a Carrera GT (Autobild 07/04). So you're talking about someone who is possibly not only far, far more talented than Mr. Von Saurma, but also quite a bit for talanted than Mr. Rohl??

Possible? Yes. Probable? No.

Well Im only going by what sport auto class as semi racing tires. Maybe they dumb it down for us just to indicate when one vehicle is wearing a really high performance tire such as a PS2 compared to ordinary so called premium high performance tires such as Pirelli P6000. Or maybe the classification of whats legal is completly different in germany or the EU.

Regardless, an RE070 isn't even on the same level as a PS2, which is a very good street tire, let alone a tire you would buy for a track day (ie. "Competition" or "Semi-Racing" such as a Pilot Sport Cup).

Have you ever owned or even handled a track day tire? They are not even close to street tires. You can easily tell the difference. Your fingernails will stick into the rubber. Just rolling it across your driveway will cause it to pick up pebbles and little rocks.

When you put them on your car, they are loud as **** and fling said little rocks, pebbles and small animals into your fender wells.

The RE070 is NOT a "semi-racing" tire. Not by a long shot.

However that site must have got things wrong though. RE070's easily outclass my GSD3's yet my tires are rated above them even though when the treadwear rating is nearly double. The RE070 should be classified as extreme.

The RE0-R has a treadwear rating of 180 which is worse than the RE070...

You're welcome to whatever opinion you want, but between you and the guys at the Tire Rack, I'm gonna go with them.

Actually I have just realised this whole tire thing is irrelevant. I thought tires such as the PS2 were semi racing tires due to what sport auto say, but it doesnt really matter if they are or not. I just thought that unless the GTR was fitted with extreme high grip tires such as the M3 CSL and the RS4 (which I considered as semi racing) was whilst tested, the GTR would struggle to do a 7 min 50 lap and it has taken one of the 'ring specialists to do that exact time. Therefore I would say my assumptions at heart are correct, and the exact tire classification of the RE070's is irrelavant. All that matters is that the tires are of similiar grade to the cars I compared the vehicle to which I thought had semi racing tires (but are infact extreme tires)

Oh lord....

M-Spec, understandable, and personally, I never said that without a doubt Nissan's 7'38 time was fact. I just thought that there was no hard evidence to support either side, and thought it odd people would use something as stupid as a PWR ratio as "fact". Given the length of the track, under better weather conditions (it is the end of November now), I think the GT-R could probably dip into the lower half of the 7'40's. I mean, with how long the 'Ring is, that'd only be shaving a fraction of a second off each turn, heh.

Mid 7'40" I can see. Perfect day and maybe Walter Rohl having the drive of his career.

7'38" is highly unlikely from a showroom car.

As much as you may hate to face it, it now really seems that the GT-R is still one (or even two, depending on the classification) tyre class down and already giving the German cars a run for their money. It didn't need semi racing tyres to run that 7'50.

Was this directed at me or forza2.0?


M

 

[Greycap]

Was this directed at me or forza2.0?


M

At forza2.0, I was just using your quote to clarify the tyre classes.

And about the mysterious test driver, as has been said before, it's not only about the driver, it's also the track temperatures and what not. The track is almost definitely several degrees of Celsius colder now than at the time of the 7'38 run, and that can make the difference. It's only about two percent of the lap time. Mr. von Saurma might have driven a faster time on a warm track, and very likely would have. Maybe even getting close to the magical 7'40 limit. Considering that Walter Röhrl is faster still by several seconds he might be able to break the barrier.

Actually, it isn't that much about the mystical lap time anymore when we think about the recent facts... given great conditions, it seems that mr. Röhrl might be able to do that time in a showroom car. Stick on the much debated Pilot Sport Cups and it's almost certain, while still keeping the car completely road legal.

The following is just an assumption. Completely fictional. Just an idea. Don't ask for proof, there is none.

Von Saurma drove 7'50. Röhrl was four seconds faster than von Saurma in the Carrera GT, so maybe in the GT-R too. That would make it 7'46. A fully dry track with higher temperature might raise the cornering speeds by 2%. That would make it 7'37. Add in a fair wind on the back straight and it may be 7'36.

 

[McLaren]

But it's still priced lower and is more practical than a 911 Turbo.

What exactly makes it more practical than a 911 Turbo? Because of all the computers it's going to be running?

 

[niky]

My Lord this thread has gotten a lot more... uhh... whatever, since that time came out.

So, one guy goes out, nails a lap in partially wet conditions... in November (take note, as Greycap says, track temperature is a big issue... a hot partially wet track is much different from a cold and greasy partially wet track), and then declares with finality what the car can and can't do? For me, a cold, semi-wet time would probably be at least 10 seconds longer than a time on warm Nurb...

I've done track work in cold conditions... and man, it sucks. No grip, hard to get heat into the tires, braking changes, cornering changes, everything does. In fact, I looked at the first half of your post and thought... you're celebrating because it proves 7:38 is possible?

forza2.0, I don't think you're owed that apology just yet... you've been caught in too many contradictory statements and assertions about tires and times and PWR, please, just let it rest...

And, once and for all... semi-slick, semi-race... come on... extreme performance or ultra-high performance tires are light-years from DOT-legal road tires... I've been riding on Advan Neovas for the past two years. They have much more lateral grip than the GSD3s, treadwear somewhere in the nether region of hell, and they're not the most practical of tires, (they lose grip when cold, but are actually quite forgiving in the wet... the only problem UHPs and EHPs have in the wet is the lack of hydroplaning resistance) but they're a far cry from DOT-legal autocross tires... I've gotten mine to last three or four events plus 30,000 kms (and I still keep my worn set for future events)... while a DOT-legal racing tire would be worn to uselessness after just a few thousand kays on the road... (hey, an autocrosser I know wore his A038s... or 32s, whatever... down in one event, because he commuted 300 kms home on them afterwards)... which is why I passed up on the even faster A048s... I didn't fancy changing tires twice as fast as I already do.

One magazine calls them semi-race. The rest of the civilized world calls them UHP street tires. I'd believe the rest of the world... because calling them semi-race puts DOT-legal racing tires in a kind of no-man's land...

-----

As for the times themselves... again... still nothing conclusive... depending on how bad conditions were when they did the test of the stock car, that would mean an equivalent time in Nissan's claimed conditions of between 7:40 and 7:46. A 7:38 might be possible if the pre-production car was running light or sans some emissions equipment, but we'll never know the car's true potential until someone does a dry lap in good weather... which would be sometime in the middle of next year.

But I do believe a 7:40 flat is quite possible on a dry, warm day, given that time.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

My Lord this thread has gotten a lot more... uhh... whatever, since that time came out.

So, one guy goes out, nails a lap in partially wet conditions... in November (take note, as Greycap says, track temperature is a big issue... a hot partially wet track is much different from a cold and greasy partially wet track), and then declares with finality what the car can and can't do? For me, a cold, semi-wet time would probably be at least 10 seconds longer than a time on warm Nurb...

so you missed that the point that he did over 100KM's and that he was also reportedly part of the test team that devloped that car at the 'ring? how do you know there was a huge difference in track temp? and he also said that it was pretty optimistic.from the nissan video that looked like a pretty cold and wet track to me,similer condictions as this lap was done.so because he disagrees/disproves that the gtr isnt the fastest car in the world or able to do a 7:38 in the wet as nissan claim then obviously it must be the driver/track/wrong type of rain/water/leaves on the track rather than the car not living up to the "hype".

 

[Jim Prower]

You know what, guys, all this dumb haggling over laptimes is really making this thread a bore. Can we not let it go? I'm tired of hearing this argument ad nauseum.

WE cant' agree on what tires are what. We accuse Nissan of pulling numbers out of the air, and then sling mud straight back at the accusers in a circular argument worse than NASCAR vs F1. people, I think it's over. people who like the car like it, people who hate it hate it, Let's jsut leave it at that and talk about other merits.

I'm sick and tired of this.

 

[Greycap]

how do you know there was a huge difference in track temp?

How do you know there wasn't? My opinion is just as valuable as yours.

so because he disagrees/disproves that the gtr isnt the fastest car in the world

Did someone ever say it would be? It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that.

or able to do a 7:38 in the wet as nissan claim then obviously it must be the driver/track/wrong type of rain/water/leaves on the track rather than the car not living up to the "hype".

Rrright. So the car has to be able to run a lap like that in the wet to be able to live up to the hype? Dry conditions don't do? Let's put the Carrera GT with its trackday tyres on a cold wet track and see if it can do it. Somehow I doubt it but what do I know, I'm just a GT-R fanboy to you.

I admit that this debate is stupid. But the reason to the debate is that some of the people here seem to demand a lot more from the GT-R than a few other cars. Moreover, the requirements are raised every time the car reaches a goal thought not to be possible. Is that fair by any means?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Rrright. So the car has to be able to run a lap like that in the wet to be able to live up to the hype? Dry conditions don't do?

nissans lap "7:38" lap was done on a partly damp/wet track.

this lap was done on a partly wet track aswel by a driver who knows the car fairly well and no doubt is one of the top 5 'ring drivers in the world yet cant get close to the 7:38 time and even says that it is very possible it cant be done.why is it so hard to believe that nissan quite possibly are lieing(and its adding up to be that way) it just seems that the GTR boys are trying to think up any excuse now to make up the difference and if you really wanna put it out there you could claim this car had more power (cooler air at this time of year = more power for a turbo engine)

I'm just a GT-R fanboy to you.

ive never once claimed you were

 

[Pyrelli]

...Oddly enough, Evo quotes that same old 7'38 time. Though they add that it's specifically a 7'38.54...

If I'm looking at the same issue (112, pg25), on that same line it also says:

"Sadly we're not going to have the opportunity to tilt at Nissan's yet-to-be-set GT-R lap time of 7min 38.54sec"

Note that evo doesn't state it believes the time isn't possible, though it's interesting that they would print the time is yet to be set; perhaps this article was written a while ago or this is simply a matter of confliciting sources.

On the whole though, they appear to be giving praise for the new GT-R.

Pyrelli

Edit: My mistake, that part of the review was done before the lap time was set.

 

[Tornado]

What exactly makes it more practical than a 911 Turbo? Because of all the computers it's going to be running?

Engine in front equals easier service maybe? Might have more seat and trunk space, or something. I dunno.

how do you know there was a huge difference in track temp?

A variance of a few degrees can have drastic effects on tire effectiveness, leading to big changes in lap time even for short courses. It doesn't have to be a huge difference in track temperature.

(cooler air at this time of year = more power for a turbo engine)

At the same time, cooler air = cooler track = less grip, which has far more of an effect than the fraction of a horsepower that even big temperature changes have on turbocharged cars with intercoolers.

 

[YSSMAN]

What exactly makes it more practical than a 911 Turbo? Because of all the computers it's going to be running?

I had to scratch my head on that one too. If he is implying that part of that practicality comes out of the cheaper price, that makes a small amount of sense, but in general, I'd still say the 911 would take it. Years of perfection on a simple design, not to mention top-notch build quality and reliability (usually) makes for a pretty practical car. Plus, there are those pesky back seats to store crap, not to mention the boot up front as well.

But, overall, practicality depends on the person who is using it. I carry friends and other stuff in my car quite often, so I like having a lot of room for things (a big boot and a "back seat" is a plus)... Other people? Maybe its only them and their dog.

If we all wanted a super-fast, practical, sports car we'd all be driving Audi RS6 Avants... Or, at least for me, a Pontiac G8X GXP when that shows up (hopefully!)...

 

[Dave A]

so you missed that the point that he did over 100KM's[/quo]te!00KM's, that's what, less than 5 laps.

and that he was also reportedly part of the test team that devloped that car at the 'ring?

Reportedly.

how do you know there was a huge difference in track temp?

How do you know there wasn't, the entire argument is a theroy. You still arn't conclusive, neither is the other side. Yet your still acting like your 100% right and no one else has any right to dissagree.

and he also said that it was pretty optimistic. from the nissan video that looked like a pretty cold and wet track to me, similer condictions as this lap was done.

I've punctuated this part for you.

so because he disagrees/disproves that the gtr isnt the fastest car in the world or able to do a 7:38 in the wet as nissan claim then obviously it must be the driver/track/wrong type of rain/water/leaves on the track rather than the car not living up to the "hype".

Nope, just because he says 7'38 is optomistic, that doesn't really say anytihng, it doesn't say the car can't do that time. The bottom line is likely to be as has already bee said, we are unlikley to see what the car can really do at the ring until next summer. When the track is warmer and dryer and when more of the official ring times are done.

I'm not saying your wrong, but I am saying you need to stop acting like there is only your theory here, you might be right, but what you have is still a theory. The same as what's being said otherwise.

I had to scratch my head on that one too. If he is implying that part of that practicality comes out of the cheaper price, that makes a small amount of sense, but in general, I'd still say the 911 would take it. Years of perfection on a simple design, not to mention top-notch build quality and reliability (usually) makes for a pretty practical car. Plus, there are those pesky back seats to store crap, not to mention the boot up front as well.

The boot up front on a 911 is tiny, the boot in the GT-R should be much bigger. I don't know what the economy is like, but price of purchase and cost to run all come into practicality. Then there is rear seating. We'll have to wait and see, and I agree a lot with the next bit. What we want from a car will vary, a Lotus Elise isn't practical to go shopping for a lot of items in, but a Ford Teransit isn't practical for getting you round a track fast.

But, overall, practicality depends on the person who is using it.

 

[Dave A]

EDIT double post by mistake .

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Nope, just because he says 7'38 is optomistic, that doesn't really say anytihng, it doesn't say the car can't do that time. The bottom line is likely to be as has already bee said, we are unlikley to see what the car can really do at the ring until next summer. When the track is warmer and dryer and when more of the official ring times are done.

but the 7:38 time wasnt done on a dry and warm track was it? almost everyone who believed the 7:38 time said they would wait for an independent test to validate it.Now here you have a time of 7:50 with the driver saying that it would be hard to do 7:38 yet the GTR boys still wont believe it? even though they said they would wait for an independent test,now you have one in similar conditions why wont anyone believe it?

It also goes back to nissan credibility,in the past independent testers have got closer to manufacturers lap times (chevy,porsche,ferrari etc) yet with nissan noone can get closer to the "claimed" times?

 

[Pyrelli]

but the 7:38 time wasnt done on a dry and warm track was it? almost everyone who believed the 7:38 time said they would wait for an independent test to validate it.Now here you have a time of 7:50 with the driver saying that it would be hard to do 7:38 yet the GTR boys still wont believe it? even though they said they would wait for an independent test,now you have one in similar conditions why wont anyone believe it?

It also goes back to nissan credibility,in the past independent testers have got closer to manufacturers lap times (chevy,porsche,ferrari etc) yet with nissan noone can get closer to the "claimed" times?

I'm with you on the main about having similar conditions but I think it's also important to consider other factors that are particularly relevant to Nurburgring, i.e. traffic.

It's unlikely that on this or test (or alot of others) that they have the track to themselves, and even then depending on where the traffic is met this will probably have quite a significant and varied affect on the final lap time.

Looking at the 7 min 50 lap time, if my maths are correct that is only 3% {2.62%} slower than that of the time claimed by Nissan [(470/458) x 100][in seconds]; though before I get gunned, I can also understand how that percentage difference could be hard to make up in any car.

Pyrelli

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I'm with you on the main about having similar conditions but I think it's also important to consider other factors that are particularly relevant to Nurburgring, i.e. traffic.

It's unlikely that on this or test (or alot of others) that they have the track to themselves, and even then depending on where the traffic is met this will probably have quite a significant and varied affect on the final lap time.

Pyrelli

both on closed tracks,they have the tracks to themselfs

 

[YSSMAN]

Nissan is going to belly ache over the lap times no matter what happens. Much like Bugatti, who refuse to accept the fact that the SCC Ultimate Aero is faster than the Veyron (they quibble over what is production, testing procedures, and the fact that SCC won't sell them one), its more or less a matter of pride for Nissan.

I mean, you're running an "average" car company and you've got one of the "fastest" Nurburgring lap times in the world, are you really going to let anyone try to prove you wrong?

Give it to Top Gear, give it to Auto Motor Und Sport, give it to Car and Driver, I don't care. My guess is that the 7'50 range is where its going to be regardless of who is behind the wheel and what model it is. Of course, it should first be a stock model. Stick it in the same neighborhood as the 911 Turbo, Corvette Z06 and Viper SRT-10 Coupe where it likely belongs...

 

[forza2.0]

Nissan have been testing the GTR on the ring since before this summer. Who is to say that the lap that horst did was in november and not mid summer?

P.S The 997 GT2 did a 7 min 30 something in november, is this car now going to be 10 secs faster come summer time? Going by past history it wont.

It also goes back to nissan credibility,in the past independent testers have got closer to manufacturers lap times (chevy,porsche,ferrari etc) yet with nissan noone can get closer to the "claimed" times?

Exactly. People at first doubted the Z06's time, but then sport auto did a similiar lap time to GM, and it also dominates on other racetracks. Also sport auto were faster than the BMW factory driver around the 'ring in the M3 CSL. No one has taken a stock M3 CSL round the 'ring faster than horst.

No one ever gets close to the times that nissan claims their car can do. Why is that?

It also goes back to nissan credibility,in the past independent testers have got closer to manufacturers lap times (chevy,porsche,ferrari etc) yet with nissan noone can get closer to the "claimed" times?

Apparently the GTR will have to visit dealers every year for some sort of plasma lining to their engines. With porsches you can drive the car half way around the world and come back home without any issues. R34's dont have the same reputation, especially once tuners got their hands on it.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

P.S The 997 GT2 did a 7 min 30 something in november, is this car now going to be 10 secs faster come summer time? Going by past history it wont.

7:32 during the summer closed track.

7:29 in september with traffic.

 

[forza2.0]

forza2.0, I don't think you're owed that apology just yet... you've been caught in too many contradictory statements and assertions about tires and times and PWR, please, just let it rest...

Funny that because my predictions are correct. Going by the GTR's power to weight ratio I managed to predict exactly the time I thought it would do with one of the best ring drivers on the planet.

GTR boys are now grappling for excuses everywhere. There is much more evidence lined against nissan showing that they have yet again been misleading than their is proof that the car can actually do a 7 min 38.