2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Famine]

Zero tolerance for asshattery

Let's be keeping this civil. It's a car most of us will never sit in, let alone own. Does it matter enough to get a ban for it?

 

[TheCracker]

Nurburgring lap times mean very little really. The circuit is too long and covers too wide an area in a notoriously weather-challenged part of the world to make day-to-day, let alone year-to-year comparisons of different cars. Add to this varying degrees of what constitutes a 'stock' specification of car and taking into account the differing experience and skills of the drivers who did the laps, you are hardly competing on a level playing field.

The only way you can hope to accurately compare the on track performance of these cars is to take a group of stock showroom cars to a more regular sized track, preferably somewhere where the track conditions are a bit more predictable and have the same, experienced driver spend equal amounts of time in each car.

Nurburgring times are just marketing fluff.

 

[Prosthetic]

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.

So... what is wrong with the video evidence? It's a promotional video? It's video of it doing it... Whats wrong with that? How can you knock off a video? I still don't understand how this video doesn't do the car justice...

ANDDD.... What is wrong with company drivers driving it? Because they get better times? So because the super JDM Nissan driver did a better time that no one can match makes it wrong? If the car does it... the car does it..

 

[YSSMAN]

Look here mate, I'm not looking for a fighting, but you're making it out to be one. Given that it is the internet and people like to fight, I suggest we leave it at that. I personally find evidence put forth by credible second-hand sources tend to be far more telling than that of corporate-hired guns. Its no different if its a Fellows in a Corvette, Rholl in a Porsche, or Suzuki San in a Nissan. When people can do it off the streets, thats proven performance... Your argument is completely legit, no bones about it, but its not what I prefer.

 

[niky]

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?

And do I have to repeat again that having seen the videos and being familiar with the exact make of dyno in question and several other dynos besides (as I have posted at least three separate times in this thread, and which certain people still ignore)... that that little number labelled "TCF" in the dynapack video of the GT-R means Torque Correction Factor... and back-calculating with the TCF clearly displayed in the video gives you 440 at the hubs, which is consistent with US tests, which gave 437 hp at the hubs on the Dynapack with the GT-R, and just around 400 whp on the Mustang dyno, which is what US people are used to back-calculating bhp from. And on the same Mustang dyno, the GT-R read nearly the same as a Porsche 911 Turbo (also rated around 480 bhp).

Simply put, people shouldn't make claims from dynos unless they're intimately familiar with them. And most people really aren't. To reiterate... no GT-R has actually made 480 at the hubs. Lots of people on the forums know jack about Dynapacks.

And of course, only ONE Zonda did the ring in under 7:30, and only ONE Carrera GT... etcetera... that's an argument that affects many tests.

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.

And you forget that the other big GT-R basher (now dearly departed... *sniff*) in this thread posted the same thing, until it was shown that nowhere in Von Saurma's article did he say that the GT-R cannot do 7:38. He said that "7:50, considering the traffic, is a terrific result". Go look it up. Post it in the original German, and translate 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.

Now that we have a nice, dry, hot Nurb, maybe they can try? Buy a day with Suzuka and set him out in a production model.

The track resurfacing may have an effect on times, but a few corners will not cause an 11-second difference, more like 2 or 3 seconds.

-----

The whole argument over production versus pre-production is getting a bit silly. Obviously, car specs change from year to year. I've driven a number of cars over the past three years as part of my hobby as automotive reviewer, and year-to-year differences are apparent. There are tweaks done to suspensions all the time.

And, in fact, this whole Nurburgring brouhaha started because Nissan was vastly unhappy with the GT-R's Nurb performance when it was first tested. They tweaked and fiddled, tweaked and fiddled and finally got it under 7:40 from 8 minutes. Over the winter, they've apparently tweaked and fiddled, tweaked and fiddled, and found another 10 seconds or so...

---

I agree... Nurb times are an impossible point of comparison for road cars simply because of the conditions. Still, an actual recorded lap of 7:29 is fantastic, and vindicates the hard work the engineers have been doing over the past two years.

Just put these cars on smaller, more technical racetracks for more repeatable results... and put their main competitors on the same tracks on the same day... and... hey... whaddaya know? The GT-R is winning all of those comparos already...

It'd be interesting to see how a GT-R would fare against the Pagani Zonda on a technical track... I suppose the car's stability and AWD traction are better suited to that track than the Zonda's, but I've no doubt the mid-engined supercar would destroy the GT-R on a technical track.

I could be wrong, though.

 

[Leonidae]

good one, Niky. 👍

 

[niky]

That said... I have actually found one instance where the GT-R comprehensively lost to a German car.

And guess what? It's in Best Motoring. Yup. A Japanese video-magazine.


That's a German-engineered car winning with Japanese drivers on a Japanese race-track against Japanese cars. 👍 Well, of course, it's the Lambo Superleggera, which is powerful and light and also AWD, but it's a pretty good showing for the Lambo.

And I think the video helps illustrate on thing people don't consider when arguing power versus weight and etcetera... the GT-R has torque. And lots of it. That large V6 and variable turbine set-up give it a great amount of torque. You'll notice that it falls away on the standing start compared to the other cars (possibly not in "launch mode") but it starts to cut through the field like a knife through butter. It may be heavy, but the awesome midrange torque of that engine pulls it up against the lighter and quicker Porsches on the corner exits, while the AWD system, large brakes and awesome tires allow it to brake later into the corner than the Porsches, turn in smoother and exit cleaner. Of course, a Porsche on the same tires might be nearly as quick or quicker, but only time will tell. As it is, an excellent performance.

But looking at that video, I can't help but think... man... the NSX needs another hundred horses... now that's one Japanese supercar I'd like to see revived. The NSX is one of the reasons Ferrari is so good nowadays... because it challenged Ferrari to start making better cars. A new, more powerful NSX against the GT-R, the ZR1, the next 911 Turbo and the Superleggera? That would be frigging cool.

 

[Jim Prower]

Uh....yer vid don't work.

 

[the Interceptor]

worked fine for me earlier, and still does.

 

[niky]

I coded it wrong when I first posted it. It works now, though. Or it should as long as YouTube ain't futzed up.

EDIT: Regarding that torque thing I mentioned earlier. I can't help but recall something a tuner-friend (and autocrosser and part-time rallyist) said about current WRC cars. They may make "only" xxx hp, but what they don't tell you is how early they actually make it. For all you know, a WRC car makes over 300 hp from 2000 rpm to 7000 rpm. With the advances in modern engine management and variable-geometry turbos, new turbocharged cars can make peak torque earlier and hold it longer than ever. Which means that two cars can have similar peak power and peak torque number, but one car will be much much faster in practice than the other.

 

[Jim Prower]

So, in essence, nowadays a turbo will get you as flat a torque curve as, say, a big block V8, and still rev to the sky?

That's interesting.

 

[YSSMAN]

Or you can do what VW does and go for the twin-charger setup, which attempts to do the same thing... Problem is, its not quite as effective now that the variable-geometry turbos exist. This is likely the reason why the GT-R is so ungodly fast to 100 MPH (power + AWD = WIN), but after that, its no better than your run of the mill Z06 or 911 Turbo.

Put those Germans and the GT-R plus the Z06 on a track like Suzuka and things could be very interesting...

 

[niky]

So, in essence, nowadays a turbo will get you as flat a torque curve as, say, a big block V8, and still rev to the sky?

That's interesting.

Even flatter, apparently. And yup. That's really interesting. It's not hard to see why Ford's so enthusiastic about Eco-Boost.

---

I think what gets the GT-R over 100 mph might actually be the weight. Paradoxical, really, when you consider that the Veyron manages to overcome its weight and just ram through the air like crazy compared to its own competitors. Or it could just be the matter of driveline drag and engine efficiency... who knows?

 

[MustangSVT]

That said... I have actually found one instance where the GT-R comprehensively lost to a German car.
...
That's a German-engineered car winning with Japanese drivers on a Japanese race-track against Japanese cars. 👍 Well, of course, it's the Lambo Superleggera, which is powerful and light and also AWD, but it's a pretty good showing for the Lambo.

Just goes to show good the GT-R really is. Takes a german-engineered italian supercar that costs over $200K and weighs ~400kg less to barely beat it.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> How's this now, the GT-R's official Nurbie time is 7:29. Here's the ARTICLE. All I'm going to say is, that is insane!

-> And take note, even GM is going to unleash the ZR1, Nissan is going to counter it with their V-Spec. As what bystanders timed it at 7:25.

 

[niky]

Too late, dude. We got that time... errh... two? three... pages ago... you can be excused for overlooking it... it's a pretty long thread...

 

[Scaff]

You do not have a valid opinion though, because you are basing your "opinion" on the misunderstanding of the word "Safe". In the automotive world, Safety is defined by how protective a car is in an accident.
AWD giving you advantage on a steep driveway does not mean you are safer than in a RWD car. As I said before, there is so much more that comes into play in how a safe a car is than its drivetrain.

I may be stating the obvious, but you're still not getting the understanding of "Safe" in a car.

I know this quote is from a while ago, but I must confess I had to reply and clarify.

Safety in the motor industry is broken down into two catagories, Passive and Active.

Passive system include the likes of Airbags, seat-belts, seat-belt pre-tensioners, anti-submarine seats, etc.

Active system include the likes of ABS, brake force distribution, traction and stability control, etc.

When I used to teach on these subjects I used to use the follow to help break down the two types, "Passive protects people; Active avoids accidents". Both types are equally valid definitions of automotive safety features.


Regards

Scaff

 

[McLaren]

That said... I have actually found one instance where the GT-R comprehensively lost to a German car.

And guess what? It's in Best Motoring. Yup. A Japanese video-magazine.


That's a German-engineered car winning with Japanese drivers on a Japanese race-track against Japanese cars. 👍 Well, of course, it's the Lambo Superleggera, which is powerful and light and also AWD, but it's a pretty good showing for the Lambo.

And I think the video helps illustrate on thing people don't consider when arguing power versus weight and etcetera... the GT-R has torque. And lots of it. That large V6 and variable turbine set-up give it a great amount of torque. You'll notice that it falls away on the standing start compared to the other cars (possibly not in "launch mode") but it starts to cut through the field like a knife through butter. It may be heavy, but the awesome midrange torque of that engine pulls it up against the lighter and quicker Porsches on the corner exits, while the AWD system, large brakes and awesome tires allow it to brake later into the corner than the Porsches, turn in smoother and exit cleaner. Of course, a Porsche on the same tires might be nearly as quick or quicker, but only time will tell. As it is, an excellent performance.

But looking at that video, I can't help but think... man... the NSX needs another hundred horses... now that's one Japanese supercar I'd like to see revived. The NSX is one of the reasons Ferrari is so good nowadays... because it challenged Ferrari to start making better cars. A new, more powerful NSX against the GT-R, the ZR1, the next 911 Turbo and the Superleggera? That would be frigging cool.

It's nothing against the GT-R, but after seeing its times on other courses besides the 'Ring, I can see it's not this superior monster everyone is claiming. Sure, it's a technical marvel and that's shown at the 'Ring, but when it comes to other circuits, the GT-R truly shows it isn't a supercar competitor, and that it can't actually compete next to a Zonda F or Carrera GT. On most tracks, it's mainly a Superleggera & 911 Turbo/GT3 competitor.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't fast, but it really isn't going to be challenging these 600Hp+ V12 monsters just because of its time on the 'Ring. To be perfectly honest, these 3-5 year old supercars actually eat it up, and spit it out, as to be expected by some.

I think the GT-R will continue to do well, but when it's only beating its big 'Ring competitors once, and then never seeing them again on other tracks, I can see why people doubt its capabilities.

 

[Jim Prower]

I'm a bit dubious on the "supercar" terms myself. Right now, I feel that's any car that, to me, evokes the '90s GT1 era...Enzo. MC12. Ascari. Carrera GT. Koeniggesegg. Zonda. Also, any car that busts 220MPH, which allows the Veyron to be included.

I've felt the GT-R more of a high-performance GT. a GT2 car, in the '90s sense of the term. one of the big-bore cars that actually resemble a car produced in fair numbers.

 

[niky]

It's nothing against the GT-R, but after seeing its times on other courses besides the 'Ring, I can see it's not this superior monster everyone is claiming. Sure, it's a technical marvel and that's shown at the 'Ring, but when it comes to other circuits, the GT-R truly shows it isn't a supercar competitor, and that it can't actually compete next to a Zonda F or Carrera GT. On most tracks, it's mainly a Superleggera & 911 Turbo/GT3 competitor.

Again, I'm not saying it isn't fast, but it really isn't going to be challenging these 600Hp+ V12 monsters just because of its time on the 'Ring. To be perfectly honest, these 3-5 year old supercars actually eat it up, and spit it out, as to be expected by some.

I think the GT-R will continue to do well, but when it's only beating its big 'Ring competitors once, and then never seeing them again on other tracks, I can see why people doubt its capabilities.

That much is true. The GT-R is possibly no match for the 600 bhp monsters playing in supercar territory right now (which the race against the Superleggera shows quite nicely), but it's a fair bit faster than its big competitors on other tracks. And it sees the Porsche, in one form or another, on almost every single test it is given in media, and it beats it. And that's its actual competitor, the 911. It was built nearly solely to take it on.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> I would say that the comparo made by BMJ is a tad uneven fight. Take note, the Superleggera is a special edition Gallardo, why not compete it WITH a regular Gallardo. Plus, why 2 997's? Is the Turbo not enough? So they brought the GT3 into the fight. And lastly didn't they had an access to a Z06? Why not that instead of the GT3 in which also the same league as the Superleggera.

-> Other than that, BMJ/BMI are one of the best vid-mags out there. 👍

 

[McLaren]

-> I would say that the comparo made by BMJ is a tad uneven fight. Take note, the Superleggera is a special edition Gallardo, why not compete it WITH a regular Gallardo. Plus, why 2 997's? Is the Turbo not enough? So they brought the GT3 into the fight. And lastly didn't they had an access to a Z06? Why not that instead of the GT3 in which also the same league as the Superleggera.

-> Other than that, BMJ/BMI are one of the best vid-mags out there. 👍

It went against those 3 because those 3 cars are the closest to it. On 2 other tracks, the GT-R was barely above the Superleggera. So, seeing how the GT-R & the Superleggera are that close on 3 tracks, I'd say they're perfect competition. Besides, putting it against the base Gallardo would be a bit unfair, considering the new Gallardo is already shown.

 

[niky]

The two Porsches because the 911 Turbo is the closest thing to a natural competitor (in terms of size and power) that the GT-R has (no, it is not a Corvette competitor... simply put, Corvette = sportscar/supercar, GT-R = grandtouring/supercar) while the Porsche GT3 was, at one point, the fastest racetrack 911 available.

With the new GT2 now doing rounds at the Nurb... the next natural question is... which is faster around a technical racetrack? The GT-R or the GT2? That the GT2 did not match the GT-R's claimed time doesn't bug me... there are too many variables that can affect a Nurb lap-time (note: 7:38 versus 7:29... that's a big difference)... with just two seconds separating them on the Nurb, these two cars should be able to go toe to toe on the racetrack.

I'd predict the GT2 should easily take the faster racetracks. It's on the short and slow ones that the GT-R's AWD might prove a decisive advantage, though.

 

[Leonidae]

There ya go, un-edited clip of 7'29 run.

 

[Leonidae]

and here's the hi-res version with sounds.

 

[McLaren]

Stupidly fast. Shame I've encountered a few folks on other message boards who claim the video proves nothing.

 

[Prosthetic]

Stupidly fast. Shame I've encountered a few folks on other message boards who claim the video proves nothing.

Shame... there on this forum to

 

[McLaren]

Shame... there on this forum to

Maybe, but none are to the extent I've seen which is just pure ignorance and hate.

 

[niky]

The video does prove one thing... you can make pigs fly, but you certainly can't make people believe it every happened.

 

[Loon]

Is it just me, or does the lap end before it should? They start the clock just after he passes the green banners on the wall, but they stop the clock right after he's out of the last corner. Does the rest of the track not matter? Am I missing something? Were the rest of the car's times done the same way?