Rally?????

The main problem is weight, not many racing categories with a heavy racecar.

 

the car can be modded to run in gt2/3 which has Porsche, Ferrari, Chevy, Dodge, Aston, Ford, and the list goes on. And as HC pointed out, they all use stock chasis setup for racing and are the only class that resembles a factory car under the skin. If they don't run this class, it's because they know the car can't hang

 

John H holds our local 60-130 events, the TX2K9, and now is a 996tt owner. I have been leery of his past reputation, but he sure can prep his track well,

 

I don't know about that logic: if they don't race, it's because they know they can't win.

I have no idea if the raw chassis of the GT-R has any inherent racing advantages or disadvantages vis-a-vis those other brands. The GT-R is special, IMO, because the nicely-balanced combination of all of the compnents as they exist in the stock production car (engine/tranny/turbo/AWD/Sat Radio & iPod adapter).

Even in the GT3 class, where cars have to resemble their production peers most closely, the 911 GT3 RSR is a TOTALLY different car than even the GT3RS (let alone the Turbo). It is kind of cool that the RSR shares some bones and looks with its street cousins BUT THE GT3 RSR COSTS ~$500K!!!!!

The jump to GT2 breaks the connection to the street variant even more.

I know some of you guys are obsessed with validating the "Cred" of your street ride by looking to the racing glory of the manufacturer, but that's not the only (or even most important) factor.

 

I just did a tour of some websites to count up the number of additional tranny failures.

Grand total failures since October: Zero

I did, however, find several threads saying "I launch mine all the time without problems." With JohnTurbo being the poster boy.

I, therefore, am hereby calling BS on this whole alleged problem/issue.

There is no widespread issue with GT-R trannies failing.

-Chris

 

Cobb tuned GTR at the last 60-130 here in Houston ran a 9.96s run. It was into a big headwind, which made most cars about .4s slower than usual. So a tuned GTR is about a 9.5s 60-130 car. By contrast, a stage 2 tuned 997tt is a 7.7s 60-130

GTR:


stage2 997tt:

 

8.4 is the 60-130 time of a stock tip 997 turbo. I would hope the GTR could roll harder than 8.3 with as much hardware as John's car has. GT turbo'd 996's are in the 5/6 second range.

 

Hahahah and Nissan would spend millions deleting the feature, and tarnish their name by basically addmitting that their transmission is dodgy.

Nissan has tried their hardest through warranty means and ECU protection to limit power upgrades. My guess is that this GTR is already close to its limit.

Like youve said those that have posted a no problem has mostly been the Nissan posterboy JohnTurbo. I wonder why John doesnt use the LC feature.

 

right, so all those people that have posted in the past have been silenced? the lawsuit went away? c'mon...

 

Seriously, they made a big deal out of the 3.3 sec 0-60 mph. It was a big selling point, the mags bragged all over the car for it's super acceleration. If it is such a big deal and not a problem, why do away with LC?

 

Spend millions deleting LC? You obviously don't know much about computers. LC delete is a 1/2 day job for an engineer plus a day of testing. Few thousand max.

JohnTurbo has publicly stated that he has done ~100 LCs without problem

 

With you driving, maybe...

https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...standings.html

 

oh, so the meth inj system is software

He's got more hardware than most.

 

It's a race car, which has carbon brakes that cost 30k and a motor that costs 70-80k built to last for hours and hours racing at 9k RPMs. Of course it's going to be different. Not to mention the limited production, aero, tires, suspension, programming etc. that go into it.

The point is that this is the chassis of the car being maxed out, so you see what the chassis is capable of at it's best so it has a huge reflection on the street car counterparts. You cant draw any such conclusion from a completely different car with a shell that look similar.

It's obviously not the most important factor, but when people come in here talking about engine in the wrong place, inferior design they get a slap in the face and that slap is called the RSR.

 

Earlier this week one of my friends saw that I had a new GT-R and he owns a near endless piece of open pavement. Well I was offered the chance to take my GT-R on this great piece of land to see how fast it would really go. Now I've seen the motor trend video of the car hitting 192 mph but with all the crap about higher hp magazine cars I wanted to find out what a real production GT-R would do. I had no extra weight in the car, My GT-R felt like a cruise ship with its anchor out after 170 mph, I was stunned at this point that it was not pulling like my old 997 Turbo(198 speedo, 202 gps) After all was said and done the car hit <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->182 mph<!--colorc--><!--/colorc--> and the car held it for about 20 seconds not pulling another mph. There was a little downhill towards the end of the runway which the car pushed to 184 mph on but nothing amazing to me. I didn't have my gps with me but I will be going back sometime soon with my gps to get a comparable speed to my old porsche, who knows how different the speedometers read. I was beyond unsatisfied after this poor effort from "Godzilla" please don't say 182 is still very fast, because it takes a HUGE horsepower difference to gain 11 mph top speed which is the claimed top speed(193).



Interesting, another GT-R that felt sluggish (anchor out) at 170 mph, and tapped out at 182. Yet the ring(er) GT-R (for which this thread is dedicated), hit 180 mph twice. Chris's GT-R was a customer model as well. Motor Trends was a press vehicle. That may be in the realm of false advertising to be that far off the top speed claims.

Funny that his Porsche underpromised and over delivered and just the opposite for the GT-R. <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_382590-->