2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Div is back]

No, it's the standard GTR on a now dry Nurb, not damp like last year.

 

[Kent]

Of course, let's not forget that the 7'38 was never replicated and that's only 7'38. It will be something amazing if Evo or another reputable source does the Ring test again only to find Nissan's claim is accurate.
Unfortunately, I have my doubts since the 7'38 was never replicated and now Nissan is claiming 7'29.

Just on the evidence I'm going to have to say... "I'll believe it when I see it."

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

According to our records, this puts the GT-R in second place for fastest laps by unmodified production cars just behind the Pagani Zonda F which posted a time of 7 minutes and 27 seconds last November.

they dont update that much do they? considering theres roughly 4/5 production cars faster.

 

[McLaren]

Did they forget that that makes it third, not 2nd? The Carrera GT is still faster.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

i like how this part was left out of the article posted above

The new Nissan GT-R has smashed the production car lap record at the Nurburgring Nordschleife. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn announced that a production version of the GT-R driven by Tochio Suzuki posted a lap time of 7min 29secs during testing last week, nine seconds quicker than the previous test.

Ghosn confirmed that the time means the GT-R, a base-spec Japanese car running with revised chassis settings, has delivered on one of its original design objectives: to be the “fastest production supercar” in the world.

“This proves that Nissan can compete against anyone,” he said.

The news gives an interesting perspective on unofficial timings of a Skyline GT-R V-Spec prototype caught testing at the Nordschleife, where observers suggested it was lapping in around 7min 25secs. This news means that the production GT-R V-spec is likely to be even quicker than those figures suggest.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/232532/

not so standard after all then eh

oh and parts of the 'ring were relayed over the winter with grippy tarmac making parts less bumpy.

 

[YSSMAN]

Just on the evidence I'm going to have to say... "I'll believe it when I see it."

While it is nevertheless shockingly fast, I have to agree with that sentiment. The GT-R has never been clocked at remotely similar times by independent adjudicators, and thats a big problem. Again, I do appreciate that it has been flagged as a "manufacturer's claim" on the Wiki, but I'd like to see it replicated by an outside source. Or better yet, give us the full video of the run like GM has done with their record-breaking Cobalt SS run.

[odd note: that one's just as fast as the R32 GT-R... Weird.]

 

[Greycap]

The point is, that "base-spec Japanese car running with revised chassis settings" is nothing more than the Japanese car with the suspension setup that will be installed on the US cars when the deliveries begin, the setup has been improved after the Japanese launch. In other words a base-spec US car.

Not that anyone is going to believe me but still.

 

[Tornado]

oh and parts of the 'ring were relayed over the winter with grippy tarmac making parts less bumpy.

Do you seriously think that matters?


That being said, it is rather...wow. I dunno what to think.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Do you seriously think that matters?

considering it goes through several corners,yes it does.

more grip means more speed means faster time.

 

[Div is back]

Following that logic we should put asteriks on all lap times, you know, because one day it might have been 0.2 degrees more in terms of temperature.

 

[Tornado]

So what? The Nurburgring being resurfaced is not at Nissan's whim, and in fact has nothing to do with Nissan at all. You can't make it out to be somehow Nissan's fault that it is so. Whoop de doo, the Nurburgring is grippier. In the grand scheme of things, its irrelevant regardless. Would a 911 go faster on the new 'Ring? Maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't matter either way, as 95% of the cars on most 'Ring speed lists will never be officially tested there again.

You can't invalidate a test based on that alone, because you would then have to invalidate all further Nurburgring tests ever conducted. On the flipside, you can't start a new standard based on this speed alone, because you would then have to invalidate all prior tests. The only thing one can do is ignore such trivial BS and live with it. "Thems the breaks, kid;" and etc. The same thing applies, really, to track conditions. The Nurburgring being resurfaced in spots almost certianly makes a difference, but it really doesn't matter.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

, but it really doesn't matter.

ok then the fact that car wasnt the standard production spec which was claimed

 

[Tornado]

You'll note that I haven't said anything, nor have any opinion, about that matter at all, so rolling your eyes and changing the subject won't do anything for your case. I'm not anywhere near as unilaterally pro-GTR as you are anti-GTR, and I'm actually on the fence about this time. I was merely pointing out a fatal flaw in your reasoning. Take your opinions on the chassis subject up with Greycap. I will point out, however, that no one knows what Ghosn meant by "revised chassis settings."

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

You'll note that I haven't said anything, nor have any opinion, about that matter at all, so rolling your eyes and changing the subject won't do anything for your case. I'm not anywhere near as unilaterally pro-GTR as you are anti-GTR, and I'm actually on the fence about this time. I was merely pointing out a fatal flaw in your reasoning. Take your opinions on the chassis subject up with Greycap.

sorry where did i say i was anti GTR never said that.
nissan are known to tell fibs not new news.They claim that the GTR can do this and that when it can.....they just "happen" to forget that a few things have changed such as chassis,suspension tyres etc,at least the uk still hold the production car record seems many people happen to forget that.

True nissan might not have known and it isnt thier fault that it was relayed but then again last year they said it could do under 7:30 but last year it couldnt,now it can? after sections have been relayed with grippy tarmac and changes to the car.

Oh wait i forgot it was stock.......

 

[Tornado]

sorry where did i say i was anti GTR never said that.

You honestly don't have to.

They claim that the GTR can do this and that when it can.....they just "happen" to forget that a few things have changed such as chassis,suspension tyres etc,

You CANNOT draw any conclusions from what Ghosn said, other than it wasn't a stock JDM car. It may have been a lightened, wider tracked, be-spoilered monster with little semblance to the normal car. On the other hand, it may be a JDM model tuned to USDM or European chassis settings.
No one but Nissan knows either way. I don't think this time should count because of that unknown, but I do know that one can't draw any definite conclusions of the car's performance based on it. I'm not saying the GTR is definitely that fast, but there is no way to prove whether it is or isn't. So stop making it seem as if you somehow can.

True nissan might not have known and it isnt thier fault that it was relayed but then again last year they said it could do under 7:30 but last year it couldnt,now it can? after sections have been relayed with grippy tarmac and changes to the car.

You also still don't seem to grasp that any differences the new track surfaces made are irrelevant. Even if the car is faster because of the new surface, and even if Nissan knew it would be; it is still faster. Live with it. Nothing in the past will change, and you cannot discredit this time because of that alone.

 

[Joey D]

Meh I'll believe it when I see it, that time see awfully fast.

 

[Prosthetic]

sorry where did i say i was anti GTR never said that.
nissan are known to tell fibs not new news.They claim that the GTR can do this and that when it can.....they just "happen" to forget that a few things have changed such as chassis,suspension tyres etc,at least the uk still hold the production car record seems many people happen to forget that.

True nissan might not have known and it isnt thier fault that it was relayed but then again last year they said it could do under 7:30 but last year it couldnt,now it can? after sections have been relayed with grippy tarmac and changes to the car.

Oh wait i forgot it was stock.......

You seem to point out every single flaw of the GT-R and make it seem it's the end of the world...👎

And OMG A COMPANY TWISTING THE TRUTH??? HOLY 🤬 THATS NEVER HAPPENED.

Get over it.

They could mean stock engine, but who knows I don't, I don't think track times mean a car is good or bad; Because the cars that are going to have the #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 and so on spots are going to be cars that you really just can't use every day.

Seriously why is their an arguement on every single test around the track? Oh wait because Nissan lied? Should their be a argument about everything a company lies about? No, we would never leave are computers if that were to be the way things are.

And where is the relevance in bringing the point that UK has the best Nurburgring time? Is this a country issue? No its not. 👎


"sorry where did i say i was anti GTR"
You havn't, but you sure paint a big "GTR IS OVER RATED" flag on your chest that even David Paterson could see it.

You take every chance to bring the GT-R down. The same argument is being made everytime a new thing pops up about the car. If you really don't like companys posting possible false information you really just need to stop reading these kind of press releases.


EDIT: Damn I say you really waaay to much.... Oh well ignore that

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

You honestly don't have to.


dont claim im anti GTR when you cant prove it then

You CANNOT draw any conclusions from what Ghosn said, other than it wasn't a stock JDM car. It may have been a lightened, wider tracked, be-spoilered monster with little semblance to the normal car. On the other hand, it may be a JDM model tuned to USDM or European chassis settings.

but they claimed it was a stock JDM model

You also still don't seem to grasp that any differences the new track surfaces made are irrelevant. Even if the car is faster because of the new surface, and even if Nissan knew it would be; it is still faster. Live with it. Nothing in the past will change, and you cannot discredit this time because of that alone.

take knockhill for example then,since they relayed the tarmac on that the evos can take duffers dip at 73mph now whereas before it was hovering around the 60mph mark.......but that would have nothing to do with the track surface would it.......even at paul ricard they dont use high grip surfaces do they?

 

[Tornado]

dont claim im anti GTR when you cant prove it then

I outright refuse to acknowledge such a statement as anything more than humurous until you clean up your own act. When you are shown proof of anything that goes against your thoughts, you call it compromised for some random reason; then proceed to back that up with pages upon pages of headstrong nothingness. And you do it in every single debate thread I've ever seen you in. You are one of the last people on this entire forum to be able say anything remotely along those lines. When you do contribute information to a topic, it is thoughtful and nicely presented. Sadly, this happens in the far minority.

Furthermore, I will add that it is damned hard to prove something to someone who is blinded by their bias.

but they claimed it was a stock JDM model

Which is all well and good, and I agree that this time shouldn't count. However, until we know exactly what they did and what effect those changes had, you can draw precisely zero conclusions of the car's overall performance based on that. I would have thought you would have learned this when private hands got a hold of GTRs and proceeded to match nearly every single performance test Nissan said it could, despite you "knowing" it could not.

take knockhill for example then,since they relayed the tarmac on that the evos can take duffers dip at 73mph now whereas before it was hovering around the 60mph mark.......but that would have nothing to do with the track surface would it.......even at paul ricard they dont use high grip surfaces do they?

So I say once again: IT DOES NOT MATTER. And it makes no difference. I want an answer to this --> Are you going to personally have every single car on that list retested?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

"sorry where did i say i was anti GTR"
You havn't, but you sure paint a big "GTR IS OVER RATED" flag on your chest that even David Paterson could see it.

You take every chance to bring the GT-R down. The same argument is being made everytime a new thing pops up about the car. If you really don't like companys posting possible false information you really just need to stop reading these kind of press releases.

never said the GTR was overrated and whats wrong with doing abit of research,someone posts information am i not allowed to go research to see if its true? i dont set out to prove statements wrong i just want to know if its the truth and when i find several key parts left out am i not allowed to post them and question them?

Which is all well and good, and I agree that this time shouldn't count. However, until we know exactly what they did and what effect those changes had, you can draw precisely zero conclusions of the car's overall performance based on that. I would have thought you would have learned this when private hands got a hold of GTRs and proceeded to match nearly every single performance test Nissan said it could, despite you "knowing" it could not.

so ONE GTR reached 480 bhp at the hubs,ONE GTR did 0-60 in 3.3 seconds (by using the wrong method of performance testing) but then even mines and MCR's GTR's made 480bhp at the fly but wait ONE made 480bhp at the hubs so they all must eh? (ive viewed several forums because one car made 480bhp at the hubs and 0-60 in 3.3 that people think they all must do that) and it was matched in a straight line by a 997 turbo but i guess you forgot it was beaten under brakes and out handled by a Dodge Viper SRT-10?

You also forget the fact it was indepentantly tested by a german magazine by a drive who nissan employed to help them test the gtr and he was only able to go round in 7:50 and he claimed it was almost impossible to do it in the nissan claimed 7:38.

So I say once again: IT DOES NOT MATTER. And it makes no difference. I want an answer to this --> Are you going to personally have every single car on that list retested?

Basicly every single car on that list has been retested,it just happens that magazines struggle to get within 20-30 seconds of nissan's claimed times for thier R32,R33,R34 and R35's, coincidence? i highly doubt that.

 

[Tornado]

so ONE GTR reached 480 bhp at the hubs,ONE GTR did 0-60 in 3.3 seconds (by using the wrong method of performance testing) but then even mines and MCR's GTR's made 480bhp at the fly but wait ONE made 480bhp at the hubs so they all must eh? (ive fewed several forums because one car made 480bhp at the hubs and 0-60 in 3.3 that they all must do that) and it was matched in a straight line by a 997 turbo but i guess you forgot it was beaten under brakes and out handled by a Dodge Viper SRT-10?

This is such a huge mish-mash of so many of your prior arguments that have already proven wrong that I'm going to ignore most of it. I will touch upon 3 things, though:

ONE GTR did 0-60 in 3.3...so they all must eh?

Road conditions, temperatures, wind, and far more other variables make it so 0-60 times vary very widely. Why is this so hard for you to grasp when not every car gets the same time?

it was matched in a straight line by a 997 turbo

And was faster in far more cases. But since one 911 Turbo could match it, they all must, eh?

it was beaten under brakes and out handled by a Dodge Viper SRT-10?

And? Do you have some kind of point that makes this statement relevant?


I would also like to know what any of the above paragraph has to do with what I said, unless you were seriously so traumatized by the fact that everyone knows you were wrong about the GTRs performance validity that you are trying to start those arguments again to mask it.


Or could it be that you know you were wrong about being able to draw conclusions based on one unknown piece of data, so you are trying to change the subject?

You also forget the fact it was indepentantly tested by a german magazine by a drive who nissan employed to help them test the gtr and he was only able to go round in 7:50 and he claimed it was almost impossible to do it in the nissan claimed 7:38.

"Tested by a German magazine" should have been the hint to stop following what they said so literally. Much like you claim Nissan constantly does, German magazines have been known to give the nod to German cars when it comes down to it.

Basicly every single car on that list has been retested,it just happens that magazines struggle to get within 20-30 seconds of nissan's claimed times for thier R32,R33,R34 and R35's, coincidence? i highly doubt that.

You obviously have no clue as to what I'm talking about, so I'll help: There are 3 or 4 dozen supercars on the big, Wikipedia Nurburgring list. Are you going to have every single one retested on the resurfaced track?



Also, since you still seem to think I somehow know the Nissan can do a 7:29. I will readily admit that I don't. I do know, however, that you cannot prove it incapable of such a feat based on what we know about the test; yet for some reason, you continue to try to do so.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

This is such a huge mish-mash of so many of your prior arguments that have already proven wrong that I'm going to ignore most of it. I will touch upon 3 things, though:

they werent proved wrong considering they were backed up

Road conditions, temperatures, wind, and far more other variables make it so 0-60 times vary very widely. Why is this so hard for you to grasp when not every car gets the same time?

they did it with one person in the car and on fumes,every performance test car mags do require at least 2 people in the car and at least half a tank of fuel.

And was faster in far more cases. But since one 911 Turbo could match it, they all must, eh?

not so,several times the 997 was faster.

I would also like to know what any of the above paragraph has to do with what I said, unless you were seriously so traumatized by the fact that everyone knows you were wrong about the GTRs performance validity that you are trying to start those arguments again to mask it.

im wrong how i backed up that autoblog just happened to leave out proving it wasnt a stock JDM car as nissan claimed to be.

why are you argueing if you dont believe it can do the time and i have backed up that it wasnt a stock JDM model?

"Tested by a German magazine" should have been the hint to stop following what they said so literally. Much like you claim Nissan constantly does, German magazines have been known to give the nod to German cars when it comes down to it.

care to prove that?

its the only indepentant test there is and by a very quick driver whos done more laps of the 'ring than youve had hot dinners(no offence intended) im pretty sure he would push it and know what hes talking about,even more so when nissan employed him.

You obviously have no clue as to what I'm talking about, so I'll help: There are 3 or 4 dozen supercars on the big, Wikipedia Nurburgring list. Are you going to have every single one retested on the resurfaced track?

obviously not but am i not allowed to put that forward as a factor?

Also, since you still seem to think I somehow know the Nissan can do a 7:29. I will readily admit that I don't. I do know, however, that you cannot prove it incapable of such a feat based on what we know about the test; yet for some reason, you continue to try to do so.

erm it was to prove that a stock JDM GTR can do a 7:29....which it cant which i happened to back up?

 

[Beerz]

Great text walls, love them. 👍

 

[Tornado]

they werent proved wrong considering they were backed up

Yeah. With "evidence," I'm sure.

they did it with one person in the car and on fumes,every performance test car mags do require at least 2 people in the car and at least half a tank of fuel.

I'm sure this actually happened, as well.

not so,several times the 997 was faster.

Other than the Evo test that stated the GTR ran out of oomph after 170, I can't think of a single test that said the 997 was faster. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

im wrong how i backed up that autoblog just happened to leave out proving it wasnt a stock JDM car as nissan claimed to be.

That isn't the issue here.

why are you argueing if you dont believe it can do the time and i have backed up that it wasnt a stock JDM model?

Because you really don't know what I'm arguing at all. I don't think this test should count because the car wasn't stock. However, that is not what you are arguing. You are arguing that the car cannot actually do what Nissan says. Completely different argument. I also haven't said anything as to whether the car can do 7:29 or not.

care to prove that?

Why is it that I always have to prove common knowledge, but you never have to prove your own, less known assertions?

But I'll play ball regardless.

Heres an auto news piece amazed that a Lexus was able to overcome German preferential treatment.
Here is one on GTP where the 911 Turbo manages to beat the Ferrari F430 overall, despite being an inferior car in just about every way (also of note, the Porsche was listed as the fastest accelerating car by a wide margin, despite normally being roughly even with the Corvette and F430).
Here's one where the Lexus LS600h gets soundly beat by a BMW 745d (of all things) in categories that it has no right in beating anything (Ergonomics).
Heres one where an LS460 gets soundly beat by a VW Phaeton, a car laughed out of America before its 3rd year on the market..

I found those after 5 minutes on google. I'm not making this up to prove a point. I have better things to do than make up lies on a video game message board.

its the only indepentant test there is and by a very quick driver whos done more laps of the 'ring than youve had hot dinners(no offence intended) im pretty sure he would push it and know what hes talking about,even more so when nissan employed him.

And I, at this moment, don't know the circumstances of the test, so I don't really care.

obviously not but am i not allowed to put that forward as a factor?

No, actually, you aren't. Because doing so essentially invalidates every single test done on the Nurburgring before it was resurfaced. Unless Nissan invents a time machine, or unless every single car is retested now, the only reasonable discourse is to shut up and live with it.

erm it was to prove that a stock JDM GTR can do a 7:29....which it cant which i happened to back up?

No, you didn't. You proved that this test was invalid. That is far and away a different thing from proving that the GTR cannot do a 7:29. Every single argument you have used against the GTRs lap times (both the 7:38 and this one) have only gone towards proving whether or not the test was valid. What none of your arguments cover, and why you constantly get bashed, is whether the car can actually is capable of performing such performance abilities (whether it be acceleration, top speed or etc.). Now, out of the entire thread, I can only think of 1 or 2 actual arguments put forward by you that actually support your points surrounding the GTR's performance capabilities.


You need to understand that we aren't saying that the GTR definitely went that fast. All we are saying is that there is no proof that it can't.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I'm sure this actually happened, as well.

so why not quote that time instead of the 3.3 one? didnt see that getting done on the video did you?

everyone else is quoting times from 3.5-4 seconds

Because you really don't know what I'm arguing at all. I don't think this test should count because the car wasn't stock. However, that is not what you are arguing. You are arguing that the car cannot actually do what Nissan says. Completely different argument. I also haven't said anything as to whether the car can do 7:29 or not.

hold on i said that nissan were lieing about the car being stock and your saying that it isnt stock....so we agree on the same thing and your argueing with me because?

Why is it that I always have to prove common knowledge, but you never have to prove your own, less known assertions?

But I'll play ball regardless.

Heres an auto news piece amazed that a Lexus was able to overcome German preferential treatment.
Here is one on GTP where the 911 Turbo manages to beat the Ferrari F430 overall, despite being an inferior car in just about every way (also of note, the Porsche was listed as the fastest accelerating car by a wide margin, despite normally being roughly even with the Corvette and F430).
Here's one where the Lexus LS600h gets soundly beat by a BMW 745d (of all things) in categories that it has no right in beating anything (Ergonomics).
Heres one where an LS460 gets soundly beat by a VW Phaeton, a car laughed out of America before its 3rd year on the market..

fail to see your point there

And I, at this moment, don't know the circumstances of the test, so I don't really care.

the article was posted on here didnt you read it?

No, actually, you aren't. Because doing so essentially invalidates every single test done on the Nurburgring before it was resurfaced. Unless Nissan invents a time machine, or unless every single car is retested now, the only reasonable discourse is to shut up and live with it.

actually i was......because it is a factor,lets be honest if you work it out this car would be 1 second a mile slower than a Radical SR3 turbo,do you really see that happening.....really? The 'ring might have a few high speed sections but surely not enough to make up that much time and the SR3 Turbo isnt exactly a Smart when it comes to top speed.

No, you didn't. You proved that this test was invalid. That is far and away a different thing from proving that the GTR cannot do a 7:29. Every single argument you have used against the GTRs lap times (both the 7:38 and this one) have only gone towards proving whether or not the test was valid. What none of your arguments cover, and why you constantly get bashed, is whether the car can actually is capable of performing such performance abilities (whether it be acceleration, top speed or etc.). Now, out of the entire thread, I can only think of 1 or 2 actual arguments put forward by you that actually support your points surrounding the GTR's performance capabilities.

i get bashed because i come up with proof that the 7:38 time was done by a Pre-Production Prototype and Not the production Road car and proof that this was done in a Non-Stock JDM model and proof that the only tested Production Version does it in 7:50 whats do you find so hard to believe about that?


more info on the Revised car

Nissan is fettling its GT-R before it goes on sale in the UK in April 2009. It might have just announced a new lap record at the Nurburgring – chief test driver Tochio Suzuki shaved nine seconds off the GT-R's previous record of 7min 38 – but Nissan's engineers are already working on upgrades to the everyman's supercar.

Chief vehicle engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno told CAR Online that the GT-R models bound for the American market would benefit from a range of small tweaks, including three harder engine mounts and a stiffer transaxle mount to stop the mechancial parts from moving under extreme cornering. It's detail like this that enabled the new 7min 29sec...

Nissan GT-R: detail changes

'The new mounts make the car feel more together in extreme circumstances,' he said. 'We've also changed the spring rates front and rear – it's a minute change, they're just 0.1kg/sq mm stiffer. But it means the movement of the suspension and powertrain are more perfectly tuned.'

The same changes will be rolled out to every GT-R; this is a global model and one week after the US-spec modifications were made, they were applied to the domestic market cars. You'd still be a bit gutted if you bought one of the very first models off the line though...

So what's changing on the GT-R for Europe?

Mizuno told CAR Online that Euro-spec GT-R models would probably gain further modifications. The team will decide in September 2008 exactly what to change, but he said it was likely that the rubber bushes in the steering system would be revised and the rear differential could be recalibrated.

It might seem surprising that such a landmark super-coupe could be improved so quickly – it has only just been launched and CAR hailed it champion over the Porsche 911 Turbo, Audi R8 and BMW M3 – but Mizuno san said that it was a programme of continuous improvement.

'The GT-R is my son,' he explained. 'A son grows up and it's my duty as father to keep improving it.' Quite.

So when can I get my mitts on a Nissan GT-R?

Take a deep breath. After all the excitement since the GT-R's world debut in October 2007 at the Tokyo motor show, there's still a wait of nearly a year before the car finally lands in UK dealers in March 2009.

New UK managing director Paul Willcox said that Nissan took 700 orders in the UK in the first two days – and there were now 1000 deposits down. Which is a problem when the Tochigi factory in Japan can only build 1000 cars a month for the whole global market.

'Our original plan was to import 600 cars in the first year,' said Willcox. 'But the UK demand has been massive. Across Europe, there are 1400 orders and 1000 of those are in the UK. We are speaking to the factory to see if we can increase supply.'

So why has the UK gone so GT-R mad?

Nissan's local MD said that the UK was one of the few markets that had officially imported the R33 and R34 Skyline models, bringing in around 400 cars over four years. He said this had raised awareness and said that the UK's enthusiast scene and the car's popularity on computer games had also played their part in drumming up excitement.

The company is vetting orders to make sure that speculators aren't block-buying GT-Rs. Grey imports are already fetching over the UK list price of £52,900 and if you walked into a dealer today, you'd be quoted an 18-month wait.

The GT-R specialists

Just 13 dealers will sell the car in the UK – each one has to stump up around £70,000 in diagnostic equipment, training and showroom equipment to qualify.

'We've left lots of the dealer network disappointed, but we will fill any geographical gaps by offering a concierge service to collect cars for servicing and the like,' added Willcox.

Nissan GB is about to contact all those with deposits down to advise them of their place in the queue – and it's preparing a series of events at the Nurburgring and Silverstone to keep punters happy and interest high in the coming year.

 

[Tornado]

hold on i said that nissan were lieing about the car being stock and your saying that it isnt stock....so we agree on the same thing and your argueing with me because?

Do I have to write it in really, really big letters?

You are arguing that the car cannot actually do what Nissan says. Completely different argument, and one that you cannot support simply by saying the car wasn't stock, as you have been doing since the beginning of this thread.

fail to see your point there

I give up. If you need me I will be slitting my wrists.

It isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. What did you (YOU!) ask me to do?

the article was posted on here didnt you read it?

I don't live on GTP, and I don't have a photographic memory.

actually i was......because it is a factor,lets be honest if you work it out this car would be 1 second a mile slower than a Radical SR3 turbo,do you really see that happening.....really? The 'ring might have a few high speed sections but surely not enough to make up that much time and the SR3 Turbo isnt exactly a Smart when it comes to top speed.

And it still doesn't matter. I don't care if the Nurburgring's new surface made the GTR push out a 7 minute flat lap all by itself. You cannot invalidate this test unless you invalidate every single test that ever happens on the track after it was resurfaced. I know it had an effect. Stop whining about it and live with it. There is no way to prove how much of an effect it had, and there is no way to retest all of the cars on the newly done track. Life is unfair. Oh well.

i get bashed because i come up with proof that the 7:38 time was done by a Pre-Production Prototype and Not the production Road car and proof that this was done in a Non-Stock JDM model and proof that the only tested Production Version does it in 7:50 whats do you find so hard to believe about that?

So, in the 243 posts you have made in this thread of arguing that the GTR is slow and sucks and is heavy, you have made exactly 1 point that supports your ideas. If you give me a link to that point, we can discuss it further. Besides which, that is a hilariously dangerous assumption to make for someone who said this a few hours ago:

ONE made 480bhp at the hubs so they all must eh?

 

[YSSMAN]

So, a point of interest from the guy who kinda likes the GT-R but doesn't believe the times:

The suspension setup on the car came from the US-spec model, and based on what I read on Autoblog, it sounds like those changes to our cars will go global for the 2009 model year.

Whoopdy freakin' doo!

...The GT-R is a damn-fast car, I'll give it that, but I'm still a bit concerned over what is real and what is not. Again, I'll re-state my official stance.

- No independent authority has been able to match what Nissan has done
- The time space continuum must be warped in some way to do what is done, but Nissan has its "secrets"
- Nissan has yet to release an un-edited video of either lap run, and that alone could solve the entire arguement altogether.

 

[Prosthetic]

And what was wrong with this one?

 

[YSSMAN]

It was a promotional video, an impressive one at that, but its not my ideal of a video that would prove what a car can/cannot do. In a perfect world we'd have independent tester(s) running the car at the track, not corporate-hired guns who have been testing the car the entire time.

Its not worth going down this road again, videos or not, it was a time that was never replicated by anyone else (as I recall, didn't one of the magazines get a slower time?). The GT-R is fast, damn-fast, and I'm more than happy to say that. But as always, I'm a bit skeptical. And certainly, I'm just the same way about the claims about the Corvette and Toyota (LF-A) numbers that are put out by the factory and the people at the track, but I believe that is my right as a fan of all things automotive to question what the company is saying versus what the testers are saying.

 

[Leonidae]

in that case, Carrera GT would not be legit either since Röhrl is factory driver, just like Suzuki is Nissan's factory driver.

and yes, the suspension/chassis setup is the same as in the GT-Rs that will be delivered to US soon, so basically it means that for once US and rest of the world will get faster GT-R than Japan, and you guys start crying out loud AGAIN because it's faster than certain other manufacturers best and much more expensive carbonfiber sculptures. and if Horsti drives GT-R, it will be slower than fastest production porsche by a wide margin even if he has to park somewhere to prove it.

From Car Magazine

Nissan is fettling its GT-R before it goes on sale in the UK in April 2009. It might have just announced a new lap record at the Nurburgring – chief test driver Tochio Suzuki shaved nine seconds off the GT-R's previous record of 7min 38 – but Nissan's engineers are already working on upgrades to the everyman's supercar.

Chief vehicle engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno told CAR Online that the GT-R models bound for the American market would benefit from a range of small tweaks, including three harder engine mounts and a stiffer transaxle mount to stop the mechancial parts from moving under extreme cornering. It's detail like this that enabled the new 7min 29sec...

Nissan GT-R: detail changes

'The new mounts make the car feel more together in extreme circumstances,' he said. 'We've also changed the spring rates front and rear – it's a minute change, they're just 0.1kg/sq mm stiffer. But it means the movement of the suspension and powertrain are more perfectly tuned.'

The same changes will be rolled out to every GT-R; this is a global model and one week after the US-spec modifications were made, they were applied to the domestic market cars. You'd still be a bit gutted if you bought one of the very first models off the line though...

So what's changing on the GT-R for Europe?

Mizuno told CAR Online that Euro-spec GT-R models would probably gain further modifications. The team will decide in September 2008 exactly what to change, but he said it was likely that the rubber bushes in the steering system would be revised and the rear differential could be recalibrated.

It might seem surprising that such a landmark super-coupe could be improved so quickly – it has only just been launched and CAR hailed it champion over the Porsche 911 Turbo, Audi R8 and BMW M3 – but Mizuno san said that it was a programme of continuous improvement.

'The GT-R is my son,' he explained. 'A son grows up and it's my duty as father to keep improving it.' Quite.