997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
#1756
Nobody is arguing that the GT-R is a good car and a deal for the asking price. What we are saying is that does not have the 'soul' of the 911, which is a combination of superb engineering and speed. I know of several inexpensive cars that can beat both the 911TT or GT2 as well as the Nissan, but that does not mean that I want to use them as a daily driver oe even track cars...
#1757
I am not a 911 apologist and certainly as I didn't design the 911 or the GT-R I don't have any excuses to make. Whichever car is better or worse in whatever area isn't my credit or my shame.
I'm not the most avid follower of magazines, but I can think of several cases wehre I do feel that the 911 got the short end of the stick in a comparison test involving track times.
1. a british mag test where they tracked a GT3 against a GT-R and an M3. Each got one hot lap and out. The mag stated in the youtube vid that the GT3 could have gone faster with warmer tires and noted that its PSCs needed heat to grip. That one left me shaking my head a bit as to why, if they knew they had a flaw in the test, they ddin't just do a better test.
2. Car and Driver Lightning Lap. The 911 turbo was quite a bit slower than the 400hp C6 one year. Don't get me wrong, 'vettes are great and underrated cars, and I own a few of them and I love c6s, but I doubt that if each car was driven to its potential a standard C6 w/400hp could beat a 480hp 911 Turbo. The Porsche has better tires (a BIG advantage for it), better power/weight, AWD, and is certainly a well designed track car. But it lost by quite a bit (Several seconds I believe) to the standard Vette.
I don't buy that a 997tt is considerably slower around a track than a standard C6, and plain and simple I offer my opinion that the 911 was not driven as close to its potential and this is the reason that this result was given. I'm sure there are more examples if I thought about it, but those 2 are fine.
Kudo's to Nissan if they have made a car that the average joe can drive to the limit easily, that is a unique thing and an interesting proposition. But that DOES NOT make Porsches or Z06s or anything else any less good. DOES NOT
I'm not the most avid follower of magazines, but I can think of several cases wehre I do feel that the 911 got the short end of the stick in a comparison test involving track times.
1. a british mag test where they tracked a GT3 against a GT-R and an M3. Each got one hot lap and out. The mag stated in the youtube vid that the GT3 could have gone faster with warmer tires and noted that its PSCs needed heat to grip. That one left me shaking my head a bit as to why, if they knew they had a flaw in the test, they ddin't just do a better test.
2. Car and Driver Lightning Lap. The 911 turbo was quite a bit slower than the 400hp C6 one year. Don't get me wrong, 'vettes are great and underrated cars, and I own a few of them and I love c6s, but I doubt that if each car was driven to its potential a standard C6 w/400hp could beat a 480hp 911 Turbo. The Porsche has better tires (a BIG advantage for it), better power/weight, AWD, and is certainly a well designed track car. But it lost by quite a bit (Several seconds I believe) to the standard Vette.
I don't buy that a 997tt is considerably slower around a track than a standard C6, and plain and simple I offer my opinion that the 911 was not driven as close to its potential and this is the reason that this result was given. I'm sure there are more examples if I thought about it, but those 2 are fine.
Kudo's to Nissan if they have made a car that the average joe can drive to the limit easily, that is a unique thing and an interesting proposition. But that DOES NOT make Porsches or Z06s or anything else any less good. DOES NOT
LOL, dont worry bro, I've pointed those same issues (and many more like them) from the magazines.
The british mag test was rubbish. They did a one lap test in 30* weather when sport cups say specifically not to use them at those temps. And then did one lap on top of that.
Interesting about the lightning lap is that the Z06 got to run 3 times, the C6 ran almost 6 seconds slower the previous year and had problems so they tested it again. Same for the GT500 which ran an IDENTICAL TIME TO THE TT on it's second try because it had problems the first time. The Porsche TT had some problems and we have yet to see it back. But the same time as a GT500 is a waist of driving time and ink.
Also the GT3 had some big aftermarket wheels on the car and the rules say unmodded production cars. I'd bet money this was someone's personal car that was lent to them and they made extra special care not to harm it, hence it being so slow when any other time it's right on the heels if not ahead of the Z06.
Once you weed out all of the tests that are pure garbage, then you ask yourself if there have really been any legit mag tests.
#1758
I am not a 911 apologist and certainly as I didn't design the 911 or the GT-R I don't have any excuses to make. Whichever car is better or worse in whatever area isn't my credit or my shame.
I'm not the most avid follower of magazines, but I can think of several cases wehre I do feel that the 911 got the short end of the stick in a comparison test involving track times.
1. a british mag test where they tracked a GT3 against a GT-R and an M3. Each got one hot lap and out. The mag stated in the youtube vid that the GT3 could have gone faster with warmer tires and noted that its PSCs needed heat to grip. That one left me shaking my head a bit as to why, if they knew they had a flaw in the test, they ddin't just do a better test.
2. Car and Driver Lightning Lap. The 911 turbo was quite a bit slower than the 400hp C6 one year. Don't get me wrong, 'vettes are great and underrated cars, and I own a few of them and I love c6s, but I doubt that if each car was driven to its potential a standard C6 w/400hp could beat a 480hp 911 Turbo. The Porsche has better tires (a BIG advantage for it), better power/weight, AWD, and is certainly a well designed track car. But it lost by quite a bit (Several seconds I believe) to the standard Vette.
I don't buy that a 997tt is considerably slower around a track than a standard C6, and plain and simple I offer my opinion that the 911 was not driven as close to its potential and this is the reason that this result was given. I'm sure there are more examples if I thought about it, but those 2 are fine.
Kudo's to Nissan if they have made a car that the average joe can drive to the limit easily, that is a unique thing and an interesting proposition. But that DOES NOT make Porsches or Z06s or anything else any less good. DOES NOT
I'm not the most avid follower of magazines, but I can think of several cases wehre I do feel that the 911 got the short end of the stick in a comparison test involving track times.
1. a british mag test where they tracked a GT3 against a GT-R and an M3. Each got one hot lap and out. The mag stated in the youtube vid that the GT3 could have gone faster with warmer tires and noted that its PSCs needed heat to grip. That one left me shaking my head a bit as to why, if they knew they had a flaw in the test, they ddin't just do a better test.
2. Car and Driver Lightning Lap. The 911 turbo was quite a bit slower than the 400hp C6 one year. Don't get me wrong, 'vettes are great and underrated cars, and I own a few of them and I love c6s, but I doubt that if each car was driven to its potential a standard C6 w/400hp could beat a 480hp 911 Turbo. The Porsche has better tires (a BIG advantage for it), better power/weight, AWD, and is certainly a well designed track car. But it lost by quite a bit (Several seconds I believe) to the standard Vette.
I don't buy that a 997tt is considerably slower around a track than a standard C6, and plain and simple I offer my opinion that the 911 was not driven as close to its potential and this is the reason that this result was given. I'm sure there are more examples if I thought about it, but those 2 are fine.
Kudo's to Nissan if they have made a car that the average joe can drive to the limit easily, that is a unique thing and an interesting proposition. But that DOES NOT make Porsches or Z06s or anything else any less good. DOES NOT
#1759
So you've driven one, and all you can say about it is in relation to how quick it is in a straight line?
Nature of the beast, with the reputation of previous GT-Rs responding so well to tuning (for which you can probably blame the PlayStation generation). However, Porsche remaps certainly seem to appear as quickly.
I was originally aware of this forum because I'm interested in Porsches (and have been giving a used 997 Turbo some thought over the past few months).
I haven't seen any posts, anywhere, where GT-R drivers are bragging about beating more expensive cars. If there are any, that's a problem with the owners and not the car.
Notional respect counts for nothing, facts speak for themselves. There aren't many facts in circulation about the GT-R's purported problems.
If you are a car enthusiast I do not see how you can not like (or at least respect) the car, especially if you have driven it. Getting upset because Nissan may have made a better car than the venerated Porsche just suggests that you're hung up on perceived status, and that's not what being an enthusiast is about.
Nature of the beast, with the reputation of previous GT-Rs responding so well to tuning (for which you can probably blame the PlayStation generation). However, Porsche remaps certainly seem to appear as quickly.
I was originally aware of this forum because I'm interested in Porsches (and have been giving a used 997 Turbo some thought over the past few months).
I haven't seen any posts, anywhere, where GT-R drivers are bragging about beating more expensive cars. If there are any, that's a problem with the owners and not the car.
Notional respect counts for nothing, facts speak for themselves. There aren't many facts in circulation about the GT-R's purported problems.
If you are a car enthusiast I do not see how you can not like (or at least respect) the car, especially if you have driven it. Getting upset because Nissan may have made a better car than the venerated Porsche just suggests that you're hung up on perceived status, and that's not what being an enthusiast is about.
I didn't mention anything about handling because I never said anything negative about it. I rides rough as a daily driver most due to the run-flats. Even in comfort mode it is harsh to say the least and I am use to stiff suspension but the run-flats do not do it justice.
I also mention straight line speed because the few owners I know all talk about 1/4 times and light to light racing. Hmmm and then when I speak to Porsche guys its mostly about when are you taking it out to the DE events or tracking your car? Funny how that goes.
I do not discount the bang for buck as long as I know I am not the one getting BANGed by Nissan. If Porsche did the same thing I would be all over it. I drove the PDK and they told me I can launch it. They said that it will carry a warranty knowing I will launch it. Funny how the GTR boys talk down to everyone who said the had a tranny failure and said it was abuse. Well NISSAN wake up you allow for a 4500K drop clutch launch instead of a 6500RPM feathered launch (PDK) and you wonder why it has problems. Also wheel hop doesn't help the driveline.
Chrisn - speaks from one perspective and I speak from another. I never questioned his choice and he definately feels more comfortable in the Nissan to drive it faster, enter in deeper and exit faster. I would too because the Turbo takes a lot more experience to master but the reward is much greater. I feel more connected to the Turbo and I have driven the GTR hard but it doesn't feel as connected and HEAVY(oh wait it is).
I have said that I would own one and that hasn't changed. I am letting time determine if that will happen and see where Nissan is with their warranties.
#1760
Guys, Alpine 997 is full of crap.
#1761
They still allow you to post?
I VOTE BAN MINID!
I VOTE BAN MINID!
#1762
What she said!
#1763
Well, that's safe isn't it? You guys brag about how the GTR does at a few weekend events when in fact we will never know whether it comes down to drivers or not. When someone says race it professionally and make it prove itself, you say "It isn't a race car." Nissan sure plays it up as one, running it at the ring and claiming that it runs ridiculous times. Many, many non-race cars run at the 'Ring 24. The Cayman is not a race car either but it did pretty damn well at the 2007 'Ring 24 running under controlled conditions so everything is fair.
If you don't race it professionally it will never establish itself as legitimate on an international level. Hell, bring on the V-spec.
If you don't race it professionally it will never establish itself as legitimate on an international level. Hell, bring on the V-spec.
#1764
#1765
#1766
#1767
#1768
You are truly lost when you say "better" because nothing points to it as being better. Interior is inferior, the tranny is inferior, the fit and finish is inferior and the straight line speed is inferior. So what is better? Do not shout out from your soap box at me about not respecting the GTR as I have been a fan for many years but I know what is "better". Oh yeah - SERVICE from Porsche is SUPERIOR!
The transmission is light-years ahead of either a manual or Tiptronic, which is why everyone else is also introducing dual-clutch transmissions.
Styling is subjective (and it's never going to be a favourite of mine), but the general fit and finish is about on par with a 997 and leagues ahead of a 996.
Straight line acceleration has generally been shown to be quicker than a 997 Turbo in most measured increments.
I can see that the dealer experience leaves something to be desired in the US. I'm hopeful that won't be such an issue in the UK; we shall see.
I didn't mention anything about handling because I never said anything negative about it. I rides rough as a daily driver most due to the run-flats. Even in comfort mode it is harsh to say the least and I am use to stiff suspension but the run-flats do not do it justice.
I also mention straight line speed because the few owners I know all talk about 1/4 times and light to light racing. Hmmm and then when I speak to Porsche guys its mostly about when are you taking it out to the DE events or tracking your car? Funny how that goes.
I also mention straight line speed because the few owners I know all talk about 1/4 times and light to light racing. Hmmm and then when I speak to Porsche guys its mostly about when are you taking it out to the DE events or tracking your car? Funny how that goes.
I drove the PDK and they told me I can launch it. They said that it will carry a warranty knowing I will launch it. Funny how the GTR boys talk down to everyone who said the had a tranny failure and said it was abuse. Well NISSAN wake up you allow for a 4500K drop clutch launch instead of a 6500RPM feathered launch (PDK) and you wonder why it has problems. Also wheel hop doesn't help the driveline.
Chrisn - speaks from one perspective and I speak from another. I never questioned his choice and he definately feels more comfortable in the Nissan to drive it faster, enter in deeper and exit faster. I would too because the Turbo takes a lot more experience to master but the reward is much greater. I feel more connected to the Turbo and I have driven the GTR hard but it doesn't feel as connected and HEAVY(oh wait it is).
Both GT-R and Turbo are great cars, so why all the bad feeling? Pay your money, take your choice.
#1769
I am not a 911 apologist and certainly as I didn't design the 911 or the GT-R I don't have any excuses to make. Whichever car is better or worse in whatever area isn't my credit or my shame.
I'm not the most avid follower of magazines, but I can think of several cases wehre I do feel that the 911 got the short end of the stick in a comparison test involving track times.
1. a british mag test where they tracked a GT3 against a GT-R and an M3. Each got one hot lap and out. The mag stated in the youtube vid that the GT3 could have gone faster with warmer tires and noted that its PSCs needed heat to grip. That one left me shaking my head a bit as to why, if they knew they had a flaw in the test, they ddin't just do a better test.
2. Car and Driver Lightning Lap. The 911 turbo was quite a bit slower than the 400hp C6 one year. Don't get me wrong, 'vettes are great and underrated cars, and I own a few of them and I love c6s, but I doubt that if each car was driven to its potential a standard C6 w/400hp could beat a 480hp 911 Turbo. The Porsche has better tires (a BIG advantage for it), better power/weight, AWD, and is certainly a well designed track car. But it lost by quite a bit (Several seconds I believe) to the standard Vette.
I don't buy that a 997tt is considerably slower around a track than a standard C6, and plain and simple I offer my opinion that the 911 was not driven as close to its potential and this is the reason that this result was given. I'm sure there are more examples if I thought about it, but those 2 are fine.
Kudo's to Nissan if they have made a car that the average joe can drive to the limit easily, that is a unique thing and an interesting proposition. But that DOES NOT make Porsches or Z06s or anything else any less good. DOES NOT
I'm not the most avid follower of magazines, but I can think of several cases wehre I do feel that the 911 got the short end of the stick in a comparison test involving track times.
1. a british mag test where they tracked a GT3 against a GT-R and an M3. Each got one hot lap and out. The mag stated in the youtube vid that the GT3 could have gone faster with warmer tires and noted that its PSCs needed heat to grip. That one left me shaking my head a bit as to why, if they knew they had a flaw in the test, they ddin't just do a better test.
2. Car and Driver Lightning Lap. The 911 turbo was quite a bit slower than the 400hp C6 one year. Don't get me wrong, 'vettes are great and underrated cars, and I own a few of them and I love c6s, but I doubt that if each car was driven to its potential a standard C6 w/400hp could beat a 480hp 911 Turbo. The Porsche has better tires (a BIG advantage for it), better power/weight, AWD, and is certainly a well designed track car. But it lost by quite a bit (Several seconds I believe) to the standard Vette.
I don't buy that a 997tt is considerably slower around a track than a standard C6, and plain and simple I offer my opinion that the 911 was not driven as close to its potential and this is the reason that this result was given. I'm sure there are more examples if I thought about it, but those 2 are fine.
Kudo's to Nissan if they have made a car that the average joe can drive to the limit easily, that is a unique thing and an interesting proposition. But that DOES NOT make Porsches or Z06s or anything else any less good. DOES NOT
The same can be said for the GTR, it is at a disadvantage since Harris has never driven one before - but he had numerous experience in the GT3 and M3. And the track was more suited to the GT3 than it would the GTR. We can go on all day about this but the fact remains - the GTR is a very good all round car which does well in ANY track and in ANY weather conditions.
Last edited by Quacker; 11-18-2008 at 03:49 AM.
#1770
Perhaps because if they do well, there's a halo effect for the road cars?
Perhaps because the rules of certain series encourage it?
Perhaps because it's cheaper and encourages more entrants?
I'm not naive enough to think that because there are lots of 911s running around tracks the next Cayenne is going to be a better car.
There are lots of 911s racing because they have been developed by the factory over many years to be very effective, and both factory and independent support is excellent.