2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

The Audi's slower acceleration?

proof on that one? ratings so far say its only slower from 0-60 (which i would expect) but not when its up and running.

Because you once again brought the car into the discussion for no apparent reason, as if to prove some point that no one else knows you made or is so irrelevant that it was ignored the first time around.

you said you would rather buy a 512 am i not allowed to say what i would rather buy? if not then why would you want a 512 if the GTR is faster and more practical and more user friendly

 

[Scaff]

OK I totally agree with Kent on this one, this has turned into a battle of personalities and now seems to have more to do with scoring points off each other (he said so I said, etc).

Quite honestly this is not needed, I have already strongly suggested that the two of you agree to disagree and move this on, fail to do so and I'm quite sure that the results will not 'make your Christmas'.

Scaff

 

[Leonidae]

Audi..? limited to 155? Funny, I recall hearing about speed of 175mph when the journalists were topping out the previous generation ones. Obviously the limiters in German cars are bit more liberal.. anyways, this thread is about GT-R. if you want to discuss about German cars or other off topic stuff, create own thread or take it to PM's.💡

 

[Tornado]

proof on that one? ratings so far say its only slower from 0-60 (which i would expect) but not when its up and running.

I snooped around, and I found a 8 second estimate to 100 mph for the GTR, but nothing for the RS6. I also found a 0-200 kph time of 14.9 seconds for the Audi, but none for the GTR. So I must conclude that the direct results are bleh in either direction. Indirect comparisons yield something interesting, though (more on that in a second).

I also looked up the speeding Audis on Youtube, and I saw some that seemed stock and some that didn't based on the video description. So I find results on that search to be bleh as well. I doubt you are lying, but I just don't know about it enough.

Also, something else I found:

and considering EVO tested the GTR on the autobahn and it struggled at 170mph

Edmunds did a test of it and found no trouble more or less matching the high speed acceleration of the Porsche 911 Turbo (being a little bit slower).
This goes back to the acceleration bit, as it appears that the GTR had similar numbers to the Porsches 12.8 second 0-200 time, which is less then 14.9 seconds (but is still hardly a conclusive test).

you said you would rather buy a 512 am i not allowed to say what i would rather buy?

That was also an offhand comment with the modifier "if I had GTR money" (which the RS6 is not anyways).
Not a major point about the GTRs user/family friendliness and speed that you keep making, accidentally or not, when you talk about the RS6.
I wasn't comparing the 512TR to the GTR, I was just saying that it was more desirable to me for GTR money. The fact that you think the RS6 is more desirable than the GTR is great, but the performance comparisons that you use to explain your desirability are irrelevant and come off as "the RS6 is better because of X" more than anything.

 

[Jim Prower]

Audi..? limited to 155? Funny, I recall hearing about speed of 175mph when the journalists were topping out the previous generation ones. Obviously the limiters in German cars are bit more liberal.. anyways, this thread is about GT-R. if you want to discuss about German cars or other off topic stuff, create own thread or take it to PM's.💡

They, for some reason, put 155mph limiters in US market cars, for Germany and a few other manufacturers. (If I remember, the old Mustang Cobra had a 155mph limiter stock when MT did a top speed test. that was a 390HP car.)

I'd guess that the GT-R has it for the same strange reason the Germans have limiters on their cars. I call it a strange reason, because I don't know why they do it in the U.S., other than to frustrate magazines. And, perhaps, keep fanboyish arguments from spawning.

However, I have heard that sometimes manufacturers have more than one limiter. I think MT had a Mercedes in the same test they had the Mustang Cobra, that hit it's second limiter at an insane 186 or so. Personally I dont' see the point, as those speeds are far higher than any sane driver will drive on the street, and are almost unachieveable on a road course in a street car.

 

[Tornado]

I think MT had a Mercedes in the same test they had the Mustang Cobra, that hit it's second limiter at an insane 186 or so.

The Mercedes SL55 (and I'm assuming all of the high power Mercedes') has at least 3 speed limiters on it. Automobile took the SL55 to an incredible 203MPH at around the same time, and if memory serves it was limited at that speed.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I snooped around, and I found a 8 second estimate to 100 mph for the GTR, but nothing for the RS6. I also found a 0-200 kph time of 14.9 seconds for the Audi, but none for the GTR. So I must conclude that the direct results are bleh in either direction. Indirect comparisons yield something interesting, though (more on that in a second).

(just to try and explain what i meant)i didnt mean off the line performance when i was talking about the GTR/RS6 i meant when it was up and running i.e. from a roll such as say 40-80mph or 60-130mph or 50-70mph or 120mph-186mph i know the gtr would beat it off the line as the RS6 has the weight of a small semi detached house to haul.Although talking about the 0-60mph time of the GTR almost every road tester and company do thier tests with 2 people in the car (driver,passenger) and at least half a tank of fuel.looking at edmunds they only did it with one person in the car (driver) and didnt say anything on the fuel so i would safely say with a passenger the car would do the 3.6 second 0-60 time as claimed rather than the 3.3.

Edmunds did a test of it and found no trouble more or less matching the high speed acceleration of the Porsche 911 Turbo (being a little bit slower).

reading that the 997 turbo was right on the rear end of that GTR from 170+mph and was wanting passed therefore i think that backs up evos statement that it struggles above 170mph.

 

[McLaren]

so dont make claims that you cant back up

Woosh.

When I say every, you know d*mn well I mean the biggest names, not every little POS company who's only around to build 1 car before going into bankruptcy.

again can you prove its only enzo,f40 and f1 owners that can see the car being tested?

Yeah. It's called, FerrariChat.com. There's enough threads there from the owners to prove my point.

i wouldnt accept the car from them,i wouldnt buy a GTR anyway i would have an RS6 because it would fit my needs of sitting 4 adults comfortibly on a trip to the 'ring and has the space,plus the GTR wouldnt have a hope in hell of keeping up with it on an autobahn run.

Again you fly right into something different.

I'm not talking about this stupid crap at all. If you bought a GT-R, you would honestly give it back upon knowing it was track tested for your convience even though the fine print in the contract will say so?

Only the weak minded play this game with dealers.

And I suppose you know all about it huh?

Why does everything in this thread (not just the last post) seem like one big fanboy argument. It seems like everything is personal and everything is "I know better than you."

Such a waste...

No, it's a thread of, "Holden, the anti-GT-R who asks everyone to give proof yet has nothing to say his opinion is correct."

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

When I say every, you know d*mn well I mean the biggest names, not every little POS company who's only around to build 1 car before going into bankruptcy.

erm no i didnt and you did say every company

Yeah. It's called, FerrariChat.com. There's enough threads there from the owners to prove my point.

ive spoke to a couple of 599,f430 as well as gallardo,lp640 owners that have been invited to see thier cars tested so that disproves your point of only enzo,f40,f1 owners being invited.

I'm not talking about this stupid crap at all. If you bought a GT-R, you would honestly give it back upon knowing it was track tested for your convience even though the fine print in the contract will say so?

damn right i wouldnt accept it after its been through that and do you have proof that its in the small print?

No, it's a thread of, "Holden, the anti-GT-R who asks everyone to give proof yet has nothing to say his opinion is correct."

sorry but i have said several times that im not anti GTR or have you just ignored that?

 

[Greycap]

(just to try and explain what i meant)i didnt mean off the line performance when i was talking about the GTR/RS6 i meant when it was up and running i.e. from a roll such as say 40-80mph or 60-130mph or 50-70mph or 120mph-186mph i know the gtr would beat it off the line as the RS6 has the weight of a small semi detached house to haul.

reading that the 997 turbo was right on the rear end of that GTR from 170+mph and was wanting passed therefore i think that backs up evos statement that it struggles above 170mph.

It wasn't about the top speed. It was about the fact that the GT-R could accelerate with the 997 up to that 190 mph indicated. If the Porsche has a 0-200 km/h time of 12.8 seconds and the GT-R can keep up, it's pretty safe to say that it does the same thing in around 13 seconds. Now, the Audi does it in 14.9 seconds. That's a difference of 1.9 seconds.

The RS6 runs the 0-60 in 4.4 seconds according to this page. The GT-R does the same in 3.3 seconds, or 3.6 if you want to say so. The difference is thus 0.8 to 1.1 seconds, depending on the source.

The gap grows, pretty dramatically, as the speed gets higher. Isn't this quite a clear indication that the GT-R is better than the Audi from a roll?

 

[Jim Prower]

sorry but i have said several times that im not anti GTR or have you just ignored that?

Then why, oh why, must you argue against every point that anyone brings up in support of the GT-R, if you're supposedly, "im not anti GTR"?

You seem to be making your case that you ARE with everything you say against it.

On the other hand, *Mclaren*, You too, are getting out of line. What happened to the "Cease and Decist" Orders?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

It wasn't about the top speed. It was about the fact that the GT-R could accelerate with the 997 up to that 190 mph indicated. If the Porsche has a 0-200 km/h time of 12.8 seconds and the GT-R can keep up, it's pretty safe to say that it does the same thing in around 13 seconds. Now, the Audi does it in 14.9 seconds. That's a difference of 1.9 seconds.

The RS6 runs the 0-60 in 4.4 seconds according to this page. The GT-R does the same in 3.3 seconds, or 3.6 if you want to say so. The difference is thus 0.8 to 1.1 seconds, depending on the source.

The gap grows, pretty dramatically, as the speed gets higher. Isn't this quite a clear indication that the GT-R is better than the Audi from a roll?

i was quoteing a magazine on the GTR/997 got a problem take it up with them

on the GTR/RS6 you again are quoteing times from a standing start which i again clearly said isnt what i was pointing out

Then why, oh why, must you argue against every point that anyone brings up in support of the GT-R, if you're supposedly, "im not anti GTR"?

You seem to be making your case that you ARE with everything you say against it.

because several sources out weigh what one source claims and nissan have a history of it,am i not allowed to question it?

 

[Greycap]

on the GTR/RS6 you again are quoteing times from a standing start which i again clearly said isnt what i was pointing out

Grab a calculator, turn it on and follow me on this. I already gave you the figures for rolling times but it seems I'll have to make a wireframe model to help it sink in.

The GT-R does 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds (using your time) and 0-200 km/h in 13 seconds. Thus, the time it takes to go from 60 mph to 200 km/h is 9.4 seconds.

The RS6 does 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds and 0-200 km/h in 14.9 seconds. Thus, the time it takes to go from 60 mph to 200 km/h is 10.5 seconds.

I ask again, isn't this quite a clear indication that the GT-R is better than the Audi from a roll?

 

[Jim Prower]

because several sources out weigh what one source claims and nissan have a history of it,am i not allowed to question it?

You know what, few people right now are apt to believe you, and that brings into question your "Cited Sources" in my mind. (P.M. me the articles, perhaps you can change my mind) But, I think the important thing, here, is that there's a Cease and Decist order (check the top of the page) out, and so far you're ignoring it. and not just you, either. In fact, I risk being involved.

You disagree with every bit of proof, even when it's not from Nissan, you think Nissan's a liar, we get it, can we just get on with life?

 

[Tornado]

(just to try and explain what i meant)i didnt mean off the line performance when i was talking about the GTR/RS6 i meant when it was up and running i.e. from a roll such as say 40-80mph or 60-130mph or 50-70mph or 120mph-186mph

Audi's numbers disagree with you.

reading that the 997 turbo was right on the rear end of that GTR from 170+mph and was wanting passed therefore i think that backs up evos statement that it struggles above 170mph.

"Struggles above 170" is very different from "struggles above 190, when the Porsche was finally significantly faster enough to pass it"

on the GTR/RS6 you again are quoteing times from a standing start which i again clearly said isnt what i was pointing out

If it was dramatically faster in a roll, the acceleration gap wouldn't widen as the speeds increases.
For that matter, we don't know if the 911 Turbo they tested it against was the one that did 0-200 km/h in 12.2 seconds or the one that does it in 12.8. I used the conservative number. And we know the GTR isn't dramatically slower to 200 km/h, because the article says it wasn't until it got to 190 that the Porsche was able to pass it with certainty.

because several sources out weigh what one source claims

I see one source against one source.

damn right i wouldnt accept it after its been through that

Then I guess that Gallardo you said you would rather have you won't be getting. Because in addition to being a used car, it is also one that most definitely went through similar pre-purchase procedures as the GTR does.

nissan have a history of it

Every company is guilty of it.


All that being said, I'm gonna take a break from this thread for a while so everyone can cool down.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I ask again, isn't this quite a clear indication that the GT-R is better than the Audi from a roll?

no its not,taking from evo 113 road test with the C63,VXR8,M3.

C63 does 0-30 in 2.7 it also does 0-50 in 4.6 and has a time 30-50 in 1.6
the difference between 2.7 and 4.6 is 1.9 seconds yet it was timed from 30-50 in 1.6.again with higher speeds the C63 does 0-100 in 11.3 and 0-120 in 15.4 and has a 100-120 time of 4.4 seconds yet the difference in the 0-100 and 0-120 is 4.1.

so no it isnt a clear indication that the GTR is better from a roll than the audi.

You know what, few people right now are apt to believe you, and that brings into question your "Cited Sources" in my mind. (P.M. me the articles, perhaps you can change my mind) But, I think the important thing, here, is that there's a Cease and Decist order (check the top of the page) out, and so far you're ignoring it.

which cited sources are you refering to as i have posted all the articles and im sure scaff can confirm what it says in the evo mags and i havent ignored it but people keep bringing things up and i therefore have to explain it.

You disagree with every bit of proof, even when it's not from Nissan, you think Nissan's a liar, we get it, can we just get on with life?

i dont disprove i am simply bring up inaccuracies(road test performances times done with 2 people and half a tank of fuel and in reference to the 997/gtr high speeds in edmunds it says that the 997 was right up behind it and wanting passed from 170mph but didnt flash its lights still 190mph when it couldnt be bothered to wait any longer and i doubt someone is going to undertake at 170+mph on a 2 lane motorway and evo as well confirm that it struggles above 170mph.)

 

[McLaren]

erm no i didnt and you did say every company

Go ahead. Play dumb like a child.

ive spoke to a couple of 599,f430 as well as gallardo,lp640 owners that have been invited to see thier cars tested so that disproves your point of only enzo,f40,f1 owners being invited.

Oh, here's the difference Holden. It's your word against their post. Who you've spoken to doesn't prove your point because you could easily change the story around. I bet they said they went to see it on the line (which is where Ferrari only allows it).

As for Lamborghini, bull****. Lamborghini only allows owners to see the car on the line. They test their cars by letting 1 of the company test drivers take the car out on Italian roads for 10 minutes. The owner is not part of this experience because the test drivers are told to keep focus & watch/listen for anything different.

damn right i wouldnt accept it after its been through that and do you have proof that its in the small print?

Besides the fact that it HAS to be so they won't get sued? Common sense is something you might want to check into, esp. with manufacturers.

It's just like iDrive. Common sense should tell you not to use it while on the road, but BMW still has to make a saying that states, "Please only use in safe conditions" to keep the morons from taking legal action.

sorry but i have said several times that im not anti GTR or have you just ignored that?

Really? Could have fooled me the way you attack every positive GT-R statment and bring in completely random cars to compare it to.

 

[Jim Prower]

to me, a car that is "Struggling" at 170 MPH Shouldn't even reach 190. It should reach 175 at most.

In that case, you're overemphasizing what seems to be a minor point. Why shouldn't a lighter, more aerodynamic car be a little faster at high speeds? not to mention, the Porsche could easily slipstream if it was right up behind it.

But you seem to yell, "Hey, Nissan Lied!" What? Nissan never promised us anything, other than it'd be competitive. Motor Trend said "Corvette Killer," but they're Motor Trend. They chose the problem-plagued Tundra as Truck of the Year. You say Mountain. I say Molehill.

I'm going to take Toronado's lead, now, before I say something I don't mean, get myself banned, and have a crappy Christmas.

 

[Tornado]

so no it isnt a clear indication that the GTR is better from a roll than the audi.

You missed his point. If the Audi was faster than the GTR from a roll, the gap between the two as speeds widened would have thinned out. The gap appears to have widened, at the very least.

in edmunds it says that the 997 was right up behind it and wanting passed from 170mph but didnt flash its lights still 190mph when it couldnt be bothered to wait any longer

You make it sound as if they were racing. You also make it sound like for the Porsche to be stuck to the GTRs bumper the Porsche would have to be leagues faster. Hell, the slipstream alone could have made the Porsche faster than the GTR, and for all we know the GTR is faster in high gears than the Porsche.
I also see no mention of when the Porsche caught up with the GTR, speed or otherwise. You cannot infer that it was at 170 just because of what Evo said. Besides, 170MPH is quite a huge ways away from 200 km/h, even if we did know the exact circumstances of how fast the Porsche was in comparison to the Skyline (there was a very good reason that I said it was far from conclusive), so making up a time that the Porsche could have passed the GT-R does little, as the Evo comments mean nothing in this case.


At the same time, I am now sure that the Porsche they used was a manual, so the 12.8 was accurate.
To be honest, the only reason I even posted was to say that small tidbit about the Porsche's tranny. I feel silly now.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Go ahead. Play dumb like a child.

how am i playing dumb you said every company didnt you?

Oh, here's the difference Holden. It's your word against their post. Who you've spoken to doesn't prove your point because you could easily change the story around. I bet they said they went to see it on the line (which is where Ferrari only allows it).

As for Lamborghini, bull****. Lamborghini only allows owners to see the car on the line. They test their cars by letting 1 of the company test drivers take the car out on Italian roads for 10 minutes. The owner is not part of this experience because the test drivers are told to keep focus & watch/listen for anything different.

the same can be said about your wonderful forum,how do you know they arent changing thier stories?

and lamborghini do,again even go to youtube youll see several people passengering with the test drivers as they test thier cars,but im sure you can think of an excuse with that.

Besides the fact that it HAS to be so they won't get sued? Common sense is something you might want to check into, esp. with manufacturers.

they dont HAVE to,does that mean if i go to pick up a micra would you expect them to have ridden the brakes while on WOT and 4 standing starts?

Really? Could have fooled me the way you attack every positive GT-R statment and bring in completely random cars to compare it to.

no i havent

In that case, you're overemphasizing what seems to be a minor point. Why shouldn't a lighter, more aerodynamic car be a little faster at high speeds? not to mention, the Porsche could easily slipstream if it was right up behind it.

not overemphasizing anything,you seemed to have missed when evo tested the cars they werent in convey hence no slipstreaming when the GTR struggled over 170mph whereas the 997 had no problem reaching 201mph (it wasnt slipstreaming)

You missed his point. If the Audi was faster than the GTR from a roll, the gap between the two as speeds widened would have thinned out. The gap appears to have widened, at the very least.

no i didnt the times he posted were from a standing start

 

[Jim Prower]

Post the Evo article again, just link to it, and I'll read it over and tell you what I think they're trying to say.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Post the Evo article again, just link to it, and I'll read it over and tell you what I think they're trying to say.

its in a magazine there isnt an online article (that i can find hence why i said that scaff can confirm) and i have one of those plug in scanners that takes its power from the usb port that doesnt like working for some reason.
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/213486/this_months_evo.html

 

[McLaren]

how am i playing dumb you said every company didnt you?

And I already explained what I meant. Again, continue to play dumb.

the same can be said about your wonderful forum,how do you know they arent changing thier stories?

Because it's from the OWNER. YOU can easily just BS us and change his story. The owner, however, has more reason to be believed because
A) He's the owner &
B) He saw it for himself.

The owners don't lie. Why would they lie about not being able to see the car being tested on a track? All of them have pictures to support my claim anyways. Where's your's? Oh yes, your mouth.

and lamborghini do,again even go to youtube youll see several people passengering with the test drivers as they test thier cars,but im sure you can think of an excuse with that.

Dealership drives don't count. Talking about the factory.

they dont HAVE to,does that mean if i go to pick up a micra would you expect them to have ridden the brakes while on WOT and 4 standing starts?

Irrelevant. The Micra does not go through a procedure like the GT-R, thus, the fine print will have nothing to say about it.

no i havent

Oh really? How about the fact I was talking about surveying track folks about which they would pick, the Ferrari or the GT-R?

You just brought in completely random track cars that had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Tornado]

not overemphasizing anything,you seemed to have missed when evo tested the cars they werent in convey hence no slipstreaming when the GTR struggled over 170mph whereas the 997 had no problem reaching 201mph (it wasnt slipstreaming)

And the Edmunds article said that the GTR had no problem getting to 190, just that the Porsche was faster (for whatever reason, and however much so). At 190, the GTR ran out of power. Which means that we have contrasting articles, which I'm probably not going to argue on more because last time it got messy.

no i didnt the times he posted were from a standing start

From 62MPH to 124MPH, the Audi takes 10.5 seconds. The GTR only takes 9.4 seconds (a margin of error of, lets say, half a second). Regardless of whether the 0-62 part was a standing start, the 62-124 part was not, and thus the fact that it was a standing start overall has no bearing on whether or not the Audi is faster in a rolling start. If the Audi was faster than the GTR in rolling acceleration, it would need a time faster than 9.4 seconds in between those two speeds to prove so. It is slower by more than a second, not taking into account margin of error.
Maybe the Audi is faster over 150 or whatever. We don't know, however, so we can't prove it either way anyways. But the ironclad numbers provided by Audi and Porsche certainly seem to suggest that the Audi is slower from 62 to 124 than the GTR when we look at the Edmunds test.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

And I already explained what I meant. Again, continue to play dumb.

but you didnt explain it when you orginally made the claim

Because it's from the OWNER. YOU can easily just BS us and change his story. The owner, however, has more reason to be believed because
A) He's the owner &
B) He saw it for himself.

and what would i have to gain from lieing

Dealership drives don't count. Talking about the factory.

it is from the factory although unless vanlentino balboni is really a salesman?

Irrelevant. The Micra does not go through a procedure like the GT-R, thus, the fine print will have nothing to say about it.

why not its made by the same company isnt it?

Oh really? How about the fact I was talking about surveying track folks about which they would pick, the Ferrari or the GT-R?

that isnt trying to take anything positive away from the gtr,it might be quick around a track but it still has to sell.

From 62MPH to 124MPH, the Audi takes 10.5 seconds. The GTR only takes 9.4 seconds (a margin of error of, lets say, half a second). Regardless of whether the 0-62 part was a standing start, the 62-124 part was not, and thus the fact that it was a standing start overall has no bearing on whether or not the Audi is faster in a rolling start. If the Audi was faster than the GTR in rolling acceleration, it would need a time faster than 9.4 seconds in between those two speeds to prove so. It is slower by more than a second, not taking into account margin of error.
Maybe the Audi is faster over 150 or whatever. We don't know, however, so we can't prove it either way anyways. But the ironclad numbers provided by Audi and Porsche certainly seem to suggest that the Audi is slower from 62 to 124 than the GTR when we look at the Edmunds test.

the times were taken from a standing start,i already proved from the C63 times taking 0- what ever times doesnt agree with proper 60- what ever times taking times from a standing start doesnt prove it will be faster from a roll taking x time from y time and getting xy time meaning that isnt proof that it will be slower or faster.

 

[Greycap]

no i didnt the times he posted were from a standing start

Well, to get some base for calculating the 60 mph to 200 km/h times, I needed to show you the standing start times to avoid getting yelled at for lack of proof.

After that I showed you that the time the GT-R needs to go from 60 mph to 200 km/h is more than a second less than the Audi. The result: it's faster from a roll. With cold numbers to prove it.

Then you decided the Audi must still be faster because someone has tested a Mercedes, a Vauxhall and a BMW. Honestly speaking I have no idea how this is relevant to the GT-R vs. Audi debate but I guess there's just something going on my intelligence isn't capable of processing.

EDIT - Thanks for Toronado for explaining it in another way. 👍

 

[Tornado]

Double Post Delete Plz.

 

[Tornado]

why not its made by the same company isnt it?

Before *McLaren* blows up again, I will say that that is a rather laughable question. And you know why it is. Nissan doesn't do it with the Micra because the Micra isn't designed for the same purpose as the GT-R. It would be the same as if Chevy was expected to have the Aveo done to the same standards as the Corvette or Audi with the R8 and A1.

the times were taken from a standing start,i already proved from the C63 times taking 0- what ever times doesnt agree with proper 60- what ever times taking times from a standing start doesnt prove it will be faster from a roll taking x time from y time and getting xy time meaning that isnt proof that it will be slower or faster.

To which I reply to this part from up above.

so no it isnt a clear indication that the GTR is better from a roll than the audi.

No, it is not. And I repeatedly said that it was not. It does, however, suggest that the GT-R is faster than the Audi. Because while the GT-R's actual 62-124 rolling start speed may be slower or faster, so can the Audi's. And the GT-R also has more than a half-second of buffer room between the two. It is essentially a suggestion based on a suggestion, really.
So I ask you: Can I see the numbers for the other 2 cars as well.




In other news, this is the 12th biggest thread in the Automotive sub-section.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

No, it is not. And I repeatedly said that it was not. It does, however, strongly suggest that the GT-R is faster than the Audi. Because while the GT-R's actual 62-124 rolling start speed may be slower or faster, so can the Audi's. And the GT-R also has more than a half-second of buffer room between the two.
So I ask you: Can I see the numbers for the other 2 cars as well.

sure,the reason i only posted the mercs time was because it was the only auto in the test which is what the audi and gtr are aswell.

M3 0-30 in 2.7 0-50 in 4.6 which adds to 30-50 in 1.9 in the test 30-50 it did 2.0,0-100 in 11.7 0-120 in 16.5 which adds to 100-120 in 4.8 it did 100-120 in 5.0

VXR8(supercharged) 0-30 in 2.2 , 0-50 in 4.3 which adds to 30-50 in 2.1 it was timed 30-50 in 1.8,0-100 in 13.3 0-120 in 17.7 which adds up to 4.4 it did 100-120 in 4.6.

im guessing the reason that the time arent over a greater speed (say for example 60-120) is due to having to change cars(with the c63 being an auto and the other manuals)

 

[Tornado]

Those results are interesting to say the least. It makes me assume that automatics are faster than their predicted times, while manuals are slower. I assuming that a DSG box will behave similar to a slushbox, as well.
That leads me to believe (not knowing what kind of transmission the Audi has in it exactly, could someone enlighten me?) that the time difference between the Audi and Nissan will be similar, but the overall times will be less.
Of course, this is essentially a estimation that is based on an assumption based on a suggestion which is based on another suggestion, so the margin of error is huge in either direction, but whatever.