Can you ban ZO7 while you're at it? A permanent one preferrably.

 

Funny how some people still think that there's a global conspiracy to make the GT-R look better than the 997 Turbo. EVO, Car, Autocar, Edmunds, etc. etc. These entities aren't exactly anti-Porsche. In fact, you could argue that they were very pro-Porsche, at least until their GT-R tests and reviews came out, in which case they all suddenly became Nissan puppets and propagandists if some of the posters here are to be believed.

Looking at the test, we have a Porsche UK-prepped 997 Turbo and a privately-owned brand-new barely broken-in (if at all) GT-R. Some of you have commented about the driving in the 997 Turbo laps, but none of you have said anything about the driving in the GT-R.

We all heard the test driver said that he's gonna drive the 997 Turbo as hard as he can, and we also heard him say that he's nervous as heck when it comes to the GT-R because it's a private car. We have consistent times for the 997 Turbo with one blinder (which could happen to anyone, pro or not) in good conditions, then we have that single lap in the GT-R that is 1 second faster, in a just-dried track.

Why do some always assume the worst for the 997 Turbo whenever it's beaten while thinking that the competitor was driven in perfect conditions?

For the 997 Turbo: the driver was drifting the 997 Turbo unnecessarily; the driver is barely a pro and doesn't know how to drive the 997 Turbo properly; the times are suspect because you've got 3 similar times with one blinder; the test is skewed right from the start; etc. etc.

How about these arguments for the GT-R: the car hasn't been broken-in yet; the driver is nervous and is being a bit conservative and therefore not pushing as hard as he can; the tires are barely warmed up because it only got one flying lap in; the car is heavy; first drive in a GT-R by the test driver who in all likelihood have plenty of experience with Porsche cars; etc. etc.

The GT-R is the real deal, how hard is it for an enthusiast to understand that?

I understand that a lot of you hold GT-R fanboys in extreme contempt but to belittle a car because of its "fanboys" without having any direct experience behind the wheel and having your contempt cloud any objectivity while putting out all sorts of arguments (and maybe even some excuses) for the 997 Turbo also makes you a fanboy, but one for the Porsche.

 

#1 The GT-R has stickier tires, so it's not big feat that it's easier to drive without sliding. From what I could see, the guy did have TC on in the GT-R, so yeah there was some time left in it.

But blantant disregard for everything that's fast on a race track in lieu of sliding and drifting around turns is pure nonsense.

Let's take the Autocar and Car Magazine drives.

- In car magazine Chris Harris drove his M3 and said the tires were bad, and as he was driving you could hear him comment on how the sliding lost him time.

- This then to presume it's impossible to drive a 997 TT around a course without drifting it when it's AWD, and we've watched edmunds show Nissan themselves do it at infineon where they beat their own car?

- Back to autocar, the guy goes out and drifts the M3 in a similar manner to what he did the TT, only to say that after all that the M3's tires were shot, with only a couple of laps, while they claim he did 12 laps in the TT, all of which were drifting and his fastest came on the last lap, but I'm sure that couldnt have hurt the TT tires any

- Car magazine does a one lap test on Freezing Sport cups and the GT-R can win by .3, the most retarded test ever and all Chris Harris does is talk about everything that the cold tires are resulting in the whole lap in the GT3.


I'm sorry, but to a knowledgeable road racer, it's fairly obvious that there is a bunch of propaganda mixed into these reviews, and many of which are the magazines that were overhyping and spreading most of the UNTRUE rumors about the GT-R to begin with, but got the opportunity to go to media coverage days for the car, hence the notariety.

 

I might have just missed it but I didn't recall hearing any of the personalities in the video comment about the tires on the 997 Turbo, so the car could have either the MPS2s or the MPSCs, right? If it was on MPSCs, then it's got the stickier tires. If it's on MPS2s, we also can't automatically assume that the GT-R's got the stickier tires just because the RE070 runflats are "specially-designed" for the GT-R. For all we know, "specially-designed" may only mean a 20-inch runflat version of the existing RE070 sized especially for the GT-R's requirements.


So is blatant bashing and overanalyzing when one is not even shown footage of one complete timed lap. All we were shown on the Car Magazine test are cut scenes.

I ask you, if the test driver really is going out of his way to slide and drift the 997 Turbo around to get slower lap times, will he be able to get 3 consecutive laps in the 82 sec. range? And do note that he has no way of knowing the lap times until he get to the pits.


But of course, sliding around will cost anybody time on the track. But again, refer to my reply above. I see that right from the get go, you're quite adamant the Car test driver is below par and already assumed the worst for the 997 Turbo lap times even without the whole story presented to you. Not quite a good precursor to objectivity.


Pardon me but are you serious? Similar manner? With all due respect, your bias is showing sir.


All of which were drifting? So are you telling us now that you were there when those 12 laps (a figure I assume you got from the GT-R's owner in another forum) were made and saw all those "drifting" going on?


The most retarded test ever? I thought you had no beef with this test and that your only thought was that the GT3's time will only get faster as more laps are put in and the MPSCs get up to temp (you know where you said this).

At the top of your post, you said that the GT-R had the stickier tires vs. the 997 Turbo. So if the GT-R's tires are stickier than the MPS2 (let's not even assume that the 997 Turbo was on MPSCs which could have very well been the case), then that should put the GT-R's tires above max performance summer tires and in the same league as tires like the Bridgestone RE-01R and Yoko Advan Neovas, right? Tires that also work better when they're warmed up and are no good in the cold.

Why assume that only the GT3 will get faster as its tires get more temp into them? For all we know, the same is true for the GT-R.


The GT-R was overhyped, yes, but the same is true with all the recent releases from Porsche, Ferrari, et al. The only difference is that Nissan had the b*lls to tell the world that they were targeting the 997 Turbo, and that didn't go down too well with a lot of people.

To say that all the recent tests are tainted with more than a hint of propaganda is absurd, IMHO. The Car and Autocar tests are done, and EVO will soon follow (and word is already trickling down that the GT-R also took down one very distinguished foe in this test). Are we gonna discount all these tests then? Or we can just wait for the Sport Auto test which will surely be more Porsche-friendly (an opinion held by some people). I just hope HvS have at least one bad thing to say about the GT-R lest he also be branded a Nissan propagandist.

 

Do your homework, RE070's are the closest thing you can get to R comps without being them. They are much stickier than PS2's. Sport Cups dont slide nearly that easy or loud, again, do some homework.

Far all we know the RE070's could be similar to the Advan A048's that the Japanese Time Attack guys get specially made and not available in the U.S. but are so much faster than any U.S. Tire as well.

The driver knows the difference between 8/10ths and 6/10ths and how you go slower but make it look good. You are just making up conjecture now.

He didnt have 3 laps in the 82 second range unless that range counts more than 2 seconds up 84 seconds. And for him to run 3 straight 84's and then an 83 on the last lap is proof enough for me.

As for Car magazine, the timing and conditions and one lap format are retarded, not the driver. That is an unreal circumstance that is not realistic one bit, but acheived it's goal, which was for the GT-R to win, and if you see some of Car magazines pre GT-R release media, you'd know they had a hard-on for the car already.

Yes, I agree, the 997 TT was overhyped, but nothing has been overhyped on nearly the same level as the GT-R and there is no doubt about that.

 

I have no problem with Corvettes at all. What do the ZR1, Z06 and GTR have in common? All of them are vastly cheaper than the 997TT and all of them are faster than it too.

And a Viper ACR? That would rape a 997TT so hard that it'd think it was a female gorilla.... and it's still cheaper.


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6461

The Z06, ZR1, Viper Coupe, ACR and GTR (and forthcoming LF-A) are all price competitive. Porsche is not. Fail!

 

Well all of the said will rape the GT-R as well, and proof will come as soon as one sets tread on american soil and tracks.

The GT-R needs freezing temps and a one lapper to beat a GT3, the Z06 has done it on many occasions with several laps on hot MPSC, while the Z06 is on Runflats. On equal tires, the GT-R gets lapped.

The Viper has beaten the Z06 badly at many tracks now, and the ACR wont even be fair, nor will the ZR-1. But the ACR will be the fastest. Even the only 3600 lb spec-v with stiffer suspension wont hang with the big boys. Unless it's in Japan, or appearantly the UK, who seem to love that they have something to promote that doesnt rub their faces in the fact that they SUCK at making cars. LOL. Ouch.

But the best part is that the fanboys actually think the Z06 is no match for the GT-R



This is going to be good.




Even better is that a LONG time ago, I said the GT-R may be able to beat the GT3 in a one lapper, and that's exactly what they did to make it win. They then had to drift the TT for it to win, but when it gets to the states, ALL the foolishness will stop, beleive that.

 

And dont be sure sure about the faster part, the TT has still trapped faster and run a lower 1/4 mile time.

But of course there is the australia video where a guy runs 11.67 at 111 mph (HAHAHAH)

 

You do realize that the Japanese and Australian versions of the car have a speed limiter at 180 kph (111.8 mph) right? That fact was even posted in this thread. If you are going complain about the details of so many independent tests which show the GT-R is indeed a strong performer, try to at least pay attention to some of the facts.

It seems that every GT-R related thread has you trying to discredit one thing or another. Why are you so worried about a few independent tests? If the car really is overhyped, then it will become very apparent when the real world results begin rolling in. For now, it's fun to see the various comparisons, so just take them for what they are, entertainment.

D<O</Oisclaimer: I think the GT-R is a neat car, and I obviously love P-cars as well. The fact that it seems to achieve it’s level of performance so easily (thanks to a bunch of computer nannies) is a credit to Nissan's accomplishment. That will however, most likely take away from some of the overall driving experience that other cars (such as the GT3) provide, which I'm sure will keep plenty of people from jumping ship.

 

You do realize that a 11.67 @ 111 is only possible with something like a 1.3 60 ft right?

Do you know what it takes to get a 1.3 60ft?

Drag racing 101.

 

this thread is classic... c'mon, even if the test was totally biased EVERYBODY has to admit that the GTR is AT LEAST competitive with the 997TT... When you look at the price difference and even giving the P-car the benefit of the doubt its clear that Porsche is going to have to step it up a bit, or Porsche owners are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of what we pay for is exclusive options and the heritage of owning a Porsche.

Congrats to Nissan for making an amazing car. I'll personally stick with Porsche just because I like them more. But I will not discount the fact that the GTR is a beastly fast car for the money.

 

It doesn't matter because the GTR is cheaper than them all apart from the Z06, and its track performance is moderately similar to the aforementioned but it comes in an easy to use package with rear seats.

Lapped my butt. Nobody's knocking the Z06 but all testing so far indicates that the Z06 and GTR are very close on track. Nurburgring - GTR:7m38s, Z06 7m43s (but with far less testing). With Sport Auto - GTR:7m50s (partially wet), Z06:7m48s (dry). Yet unpublished results also show both cars to lap the UK Bedford Autodrome in around 1m22s.

Just like the standard GTR wouldn't beat the 997TT and GT3. I thought you'd have learnt not to spout off by now. At present the GTR is cheaper than the aforementioned ($67,000), so it doesn't need to beat them. You don't get it yet do you? This is the GT version. It weighs 1740kg for God's sake. All it needs is more power, less weight and CCBs and the 997 will be a joke, not a competitor.... and the GTR V-Spec will still be cheaper. It'll also be a lot easier to drive fast than all the aforementioned too.

Ha ha. That's rich. At least none of our magazines showed a Shelby GT500 to lap faster than a 997TT.

I'm not one of them. On a dry Grand Prix track, the Z06 and GTR are closely matched. Throw in some water and more 2nd gear turns and tight chicanes and things swing in favour of the GTR. Throw in more 4th gear turns and the Z06 comes out on top.

Not if the magazine that tested the GT500 against the Porsche gets it. That will be just the start of the foolishness. Really, I don't see how the home of Motor Trend can insult foreign motoring journalism.

 

And why the disguise there? You have the courage to come here yet not the courage to keep the same screen name?

 

Incorrect, looks like you better go back to internet drag racing grade-school.

An early rev/speed limiter, hitting the brakes at the traps to keep from getting kicked out of a track, losing the clutch in a higher gear, etc, will kill the trap speed while still running a good ET, and this does not require cutting a 1.3 60’.

I have personally driven a heavy AWD car (like the GT-R) car to an 11.43 @ 114 mph on a 1.8 60'. Certainly nowhere near the 1.3 60' you claim it would require to run a mid 11 sec ET with such a low MPH. On that pass the car lost the clutch in 3rd gear, so it was pretty much coasting past the 1/8th. On a clean pass that car only runs .5-.7 sec faster, but traps 27 mph higher.

Regardless, I was merely suggesting that if you are going to try and discredit something, try and at least base your statements on some form of correct info so it’s not so obvious how desperately biased you are. Clearly my suggestion went ignored, so carry on.

 

I call b.s. on your 1/4 mile run unless the car was a 10 mid-low 10 second car. The GT-R is no such thing. So running a faster time and 10 mph slower than what the factory claims or the fastest time to date is what makes it b.s.

But you obviously didnt get that part.