997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
#2356
12-16-2008, 07:37 PM
#2357
12-16-2008, 10:12 PM
C&D flat out lied on that trap speed, which is why you cant take much of anything they say about the GT-R serious. Then wouldnt admit it after the fact. On top of that they put a new driver experienced in the GT-R in the lightning lap as well as pretested in on different sets of tires to make the GT-R look better. People thought I was insane for implying that between rabid fanboys and media play, Nissan was manipulating the mags. Doesnt sound so far fetched now does it?
I did find the all-season vs. performance tire data but can you refer me to the part about a different driver?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...p_2008_feature
Also, given that a Z51 was only 2 seconds slower than a Z-06 (showing variance of conditions, etc), and that the Nissan's max speed was well below others in that range ET range, it does indicate it handles quite well. That max speed also indicates it was NOT a more powerful than stock version.
#2359
12-17-2008, 12:53 AM
#2360
12-17-2008, 02:58 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 
I don't believe they lied. But they DID have a more powerful than stock pre-production model. They also did a dyno test of a stock model as well. Later models were not as fast as 124mph.
I did find the all-season vs. performance tire data but can you refer me to the part about a different driver?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...p_2008_feature
Also, given that a Z51 was only 2 seconds slower than a Z-06 (showing variance of conditions, etc), and that the Nissan's max speed was well below others in that range ET range, it does indicate it handles quite well. That max speed also indicates it was NOT a more powerful than stock version.
I did find the all-season vs. performance tire data but can you refer me to the part about a different driver?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...p_2008_feature
Also, given that a Z51 was only 2 seconds slower than a Z-06 (showing variance of conditions, etc), and that the Nissan's max speed was well below others in that range ET range, it does indicate it handles quite well. That max speed also indicates it was NOT a more powerful than stock version.
As for the lightning lap look up tony swan who drove the GT-R in the one lap of america. He'd never driven for the lightning lap before but they flew him in for this test and he's better than the other mag drivers anyways and actually has racing history. And they said in the article that they tested on both sets of tires, something they've never done for any other car.
#2362
12-17-2008, 05:47 AM
Sport Auto testing the GTR in the Superfest using HVS is like Best Motoring testing the turbo using Tsuchiya. Very fair and unbias
Why would a German magazine and driver want a Japanese car to slaughter their pride and joy Porsche turbo?
Why would a German magazine and driver want a Japanese car to slaughter their pride and joy Porsche turbo?
#2364
12-17-2008, 07:06 AM
The GT-R is faster, but I wouldn't say it's a better "driver's car." That's a fuzzy term, but it usually refers to "involvement" and "feedback." I would have to give the nod to the Turbo for those categories.
I was just at the track this weekend in the Turbo (on street tires because rain was expected). On more than one occasion, I got some stern feedback "you lifted too much you idiot, catch my tail in time if you can!"
I had a great time, but was about a second off my pace in the GT-R.
-Chris
I was just at the track this weekend in the Turbo (on street tires because rain was expected). On more than one occasion, I got some stern feedback "you lifted too much you idiot, catch my tail in time if you can!"
I had a great time, but was about a second off my pace in the GT-R.
-Chris
Chris I hate to say it but neither the GTR nor 997tt are going make one a better driver. They are too powerful to learn on. Many of my compadres are going to spec Miata, spec Boxster, etc to force themselves to become faster drivers. It is too easy to cover up suboptimal lines and driving with massive HP. I try to take most of my laps in my 944
#2365
12-17-2008, 08:35 AM
Why don't you take a break from the drugs and let us know when you come back to reality.
#2366
12-17-2008, 09:32 AM
Chris I hate to say it but neither the GTR nor 997tt are going make one a better driver. They are too powerful to learn on. Many of my compadres are going to spec Miata, spec Boxster, etc to force themselves to become faster drivers. It is too easy to cover up suboptimal lines and driving with massive HP. I try to take most of my laps in my 944
I hear you. I used to have a "base" (2.7) Cayman. Great track car. Especially on the used market, they (and also the "S" model) are dirt cheap. If I only had a bigger garage......
#2368
12-17-2008, 10:38 AM
They did lie on the trap speed. Just like the other big mags, C&D adjust 1/4 mile times for altitude because they tested at over 3000 ft so power is sapped by the thin air. It's clear as day on the results sheet that they gave the car a correction for an NA car instead of FI car which loses less power at altitude. And we havent seen any stock GT-R even in the mags close to a 124. The correct trap speed was 119 which is in line with the other mags.
As for the lightning lap look up tony swan who drove the GT-R in the one lap of america. He'd never driven for the lightning lap before but they flew him in for this test and he's better than the other mag drivers anyways and actually has racing history. And they said in the article that they tested on both sets of tires, something they've never done for any other car.
As for the lightning lap look up tony swan who drove the GT-R in the one lap of america. He'd never driven for the lightning lap before but they flew him in for this test and he's better than the other mag drivers anyways and actually has racing history. And they said in the article that they tested on both sets of tires, something they've never done for any other car.
As far as the Lightning Lap, the max speed shows it made stock power levels, but it was well driven. I suspect given some time, the Z-06, Ford GT and Viper (non-ACR) would have posted better times. I think it points to the driver aides the car has.
I'd say we agree, we're just saying it differently.
#2369
12-17-2008, 10:51 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Age: 40
Posts: 552
Rep Power: 41 I agree that the GT-R is a 7:38 car when purchased from a Nissan dealer with the Dunlop tires. The car that went 7:29 must have been a Spec V proto type with more than 530hp. I am surprised that the Z06 managed to go the entire length of the track without blowing it's motor though! Perhaps on lap 2 it would have lost it's engine!
Perhaps on lap 2 it would have lost it's engine!
#2370
12-17-2008, 12:48 PM
So again I am surprised that the Z06 managed to get around a 13 mile track without blowing it's motor. 