No, i won't go into details because i know that i will be wasting my time because i know that you WILL NOT UNDERSTAND.

 

I see words on my screen, but it just seems like white noise...

 

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I see some glaring problems with the DR comparison:

1. The GT2 is a press car so obviously it is a ringer.

2. The GT2 had well worn tires, thus Harris was running with tires that were basically racing slicks.

3. Chris Harris is obviously a Porsche fanboy. Heck, he races Porsches at the 'ring and obviously knows how to drive 'em better. Isn't he the one who kept stomping the Z06 with the GT2 in that acceleration comparison they did a little while back? That was obviously rigged.

4. If Suzuki had been driving the GTR, it would have run a 7:29. These guys who can turn only 7:50's in a GTR at the 'ring are simply no where near as skillful as the ex-Formula 1 ace. They need some driving lessons from Nissan.

5. The GT2 costs twice as much as the GTR, so what do you expect?

6. I want to know how many times the GTR was launched. Perhaps Harris was driving with an over-launched, weakened transmission.

Geez, give me a break!

 

Actually, the GT-R did fine on moist and damp tracks, the situation you are talking about was the monsoon in standing water at TWS. Not even hardly the same. There were other semi-wet conditions that the car did fine in. Besides, like I said before, look at the vids, for the most part the track was fairly dry.

The vast majority of GT-R tests have been done on the bridgestones, as was this one. So I guess everyone is ignorant huh? Or maybe everyone (Road and Track, Car and Driver) isnt willing to do whatever neccessary to make sure the GT-R wins (Steve Millen, Tony Swan).

Since you cant understand a sense of humor in your anger, the point is that Nissan LIED on the R33's time too, so when the other entities tried and only got 8:20 it fit right in line with this. The stock R33 is NOT a sub 8:00 car.




AND YOU ARE Z07, AND YOU WILL GET BANNED LIKE THE REST OF THEM!!!

 

You are the failure here.

How can a 997 TT owner be a troll on a site he's been a member of and posting on for a long time in a section that involves the car he owns??



Now you on the other hand, well we already know. The faulty designed GT-R which you dont even own is just like the POS service it requires. Look at all the complaints about rattles, overheating, brake fade, maintenance costs. ETC. How many more people are SCARED TO DEATH TO TURN OFF THE VDC!!!!?????



Well informed individuals are the ones who are laughing at Nissan, unless they own a GT-R in which case they are suing or bashing them for refusing to own up to what they have done.

 

...or just enjoying the GT-R for what it is: a unique car that is very very fast and also fun to drive. I just got back from my standard run through the local twisties, and I have no regrets.

 

But what would you know Chrisn, you're just a GTR owner who've tracked the car and driven it hard. HC and the 'haters' hasn't even seen a GTR in real life yet, let alone driven one - so they know better.

 

The press tested whatever models that were given to them, and most of the models available happened to be the premiums on Bridgestones. But for a company such as Porsche to go out of their way and buy a GTR so that they can verify if the 7:29 claim from Nissan is legit, I'm sure they would've done their research and would've known that the GTR that did the 7:29 was on Dunlops and NOT the Bridgestones. You're excuses are looking pathetic and do not make sense HC. Give it up.

 

Hot dog, it ain't over yet! I say this thread makes it to 200.

 

Porsche tested what everyone had been testing. Because what they were wondering was how the GT-R had been besting the Porsches in the MEDIA, and since the ones in the media were on Bridgestones, THAT'S WHAT THEY TESTED!!!!!!!! If they were within 5 seconds of the 7:29 they likely would've kept their mouth shut. The Dunlops will not account for 27 seconds. PERIOD.

You are the one making excuses here. Not me.

 

Thats a cool post. And I don't doubt at all that the GT-R would be a really really fun car to take through the local twisties.

Once the hype (and sometimes BS) Nissan worked so hard to build up around this car dies down, and all those teeming masses of non-GT-R-owners stop invading every corner of the internet and every youtube video talking about the GT-R, I think the big Nissan will find more people interested in one, more success over the long term, and more general respect.

Because what it seems to be - an extremely accessible car with enough power to play with the big boys - is a pretty interesting proposition. Take out the fragile tranny and put in a manual or a torque converter automatic with a locking function or something. From what I gather, it seems like you'd have a car that the average joe could drive quicker than most any other. And I don't doubt there's a good market for that.

 

Not sure if it was posted before, but even on the topgear test track, the GT2 beat the GTR, even if it was only 0.2s. IMO, while the difference in speed b/w the cars doesn't justify the price difference, other stuff like interior quality makes up for it by miles.

Though I'll admit that personally I wouldn't get either I'll still go with an Aston

 

And no one could fault you for that.

 

What's the media testing of the GTRs got to do with Nissan's 7:29 claim on the ring? Porsche was not interested in seeing if the GTR was faster than the turbo - they already know that. Porsche was out to see if it was possible to replicate the 7:29 on the ring, which was clearly stated by Nissan that that time was achieved using a stock car under ideal conditions and using DUNLOPS. Now why would they go out and buy a GTR which has BRIDGESTONES and NOT the DUNLOPS to verify Nissan's claim? Pretty stupid wouldn't you think so? You don't make sense HC

I give you a scenario, lets say your friend tells you that he can drive a Z06 2:15 around a particular track - which is 5 sec faster than what you can do. Now you want to check out his claim to see if he's telling the truth or just 'pulling your leg' by driving the Z06 on that track yourself. Wouldn't you be asking him what tires he'd used, the state of tune of the car and the track conditions? You would want to know all the details and make sure that the car you drove is the same spec as the car he drove and under similar conditions before you go off and accuse him of lying wouldn't you?

 

Why would I need to ask the state of the tune of the car if it's supposed to be factory stock?

The point the Porsche made is the same as DR is making. They gave the benefit of the doubt for some better driving, and better weather and better tires and still dont think a 7:27 is possible. Stop trying to act like Porsche is the only group saying this. Add Horst to that list as well.

We have several guys which extensive knowledge of the ring saying they dont think it's possible. Like I said, had Porsche ran a 1:35-1:40 I bet they would have kep their mouth shut because they gave room for knowledge of the car and better tires.

You are trying to hard to resist a mountain of evidence that points to Nissan cheating yet again. Go back and read my acceleration data if you forgot some of it.

But what else should we expect from a Z07?