Which independent tests? No Sport Auto Supertest yet. Porsche's? Pardon me but that's like McDonald's saying it's better than Burger King by virtue of its own tests. Independent by name but we all know there's agenda behind it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. There's too much bias against the GT-R right from the get-go. I still remember the whole 997TT vs. C6 Z06 debate and even that rivalry is nothing compared to what's being perpetuated for the 997TT vs. GT-R brouhaha by parties on both sides. You gotta admit that this kind of hostile environment is no good for a completely unbiased and objective view on things. Too much conspiracy theories out there.

I still believe that this whole 'Ring time debate will be clearer once Sport Auto did its Supertest for the GT-R. Too bad it won't happen until next year.

 

Yes, independent tests- the guy who does the Sport Auto tests (Horst von Saurma) only managed a 7:50 around the ring from a real production GT-R. He said that car wouldn't go much faster.

Edit- I see you're aware of that test, and I assume you'll say it's pre-production. Might be...
I don't disagree the environment here is very anti-GTR, which I don't like. Which doesn't mean Nissan didn't stretch the facts with that time...

 

The 7:38 sounds suspiciously fast to me. Clearly a very fast example could achieve that, but I doubt it would be representative of production cars. No data to back that up, just a gut feel.

 

Oh, the desperate fanboys, filing in by the droves only to quote the same magazines over and over.

Just like I said that car and driver would change it's driver lineup to benefit the GT-R, the supertest is now huge, and you can bet Nissan will get a fast car to be tested. If Horst runs 10+ seconds slower than Nissan, game over.

And for the 91 octane excuse, there is plenty of 93 octane in the cars that are trapping 114 on the east coast. And more than likely 98 or better in the ones that arent.

 

To me, even more bothersome than the shameful 7:29, is the way that this company advertised and publicized ring data with pre-meditated intention to trick inexperienced writers (Edmunds) and customers, and the way Nissan owners then innocently bought into the myth and helped "spread the message" without regard for reasons and logic.

The other point that I need to emphasize is that if a river has so many alligators that swimmers are not allowed to swim, what's the point of discussing how long it takes to cross that river? GT-R owners ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RACE, what's the point of discussing track times?

It seems the dike is broken and said owners are entering capitulating phase; there simply are too many issues with this car. If for example miracle did happen and the GT-R did make the 7:29 fantasy, there are STILL many other issues to deal with: the ugliness, the heaviness, the warranty, the transmission, etc., etc. So many problems so early in the life of this car.

My conclusion was and is: Good and fast car, but heavy and built to be cheap, and therein lie the many problems.

 

The ring has lots of kinks, which the GTR is good at (it's best in fast transitions), but it also has lots of long straights and periods where you on full power for long times, despite the road not being dead straight. Over all those long full-power periods even the fastest GTRs tested, like your 121.6, should be getting pulled by the ~129 in the 1/4 ACR. The videos show otherwise, however...

So we're broadly in agreement. The GTR is fast, but not quite that fast... I'll go with a little slower than the 7:38 because that run was made with a car just as fast down the straights as the ACR, ie it too beats the ARC down the longer straights. As I said before I believe it had ~60 whp over something like at 121.6 R&T car. But we shall know soon...

 

7:54 is also the time of the 996tt. The SA test was questioned since there is little possibility that the newer generation 997 chassis coupled with 60+ more HP would be no faster at the ring than the 996tt. For the 997tt to only match the 996tt at the ring despite much more power would mean the 997 chassis was worse than the 996 chassis - does not make any sense at all

The rear engine chassis of the 911's are the most difficult to master. Front engine rear drive 50/50 wt distribution is easier to master, and front engine AWD 50/50 wt distribution should be the easiest to drive fast. Why would the ringer car be faster than the production vehicle tested - are you really asking that?

 

Exactly my stance on it. You have to deal with:

-Tires that last 5k miles (not including track) (if you want mag type handling)
-Most likely getting a 114-116 mph trapping car
-7k to change pads and rotors
-Incredible maintenance costs which will become even bigger after warranty
-$1800 service within some many miles/days after a track event
-Features on the car that will void your warranty if you use them and it breaks.
-Parts on the car that are weak and will break leading to the above.
-Tansmission whine and other random noises.
-A stiff ride.
-Nissan Service and delivery

And

The majority of GT-R's wont even be tracked, so the hype is so abundantly useless it's rediculous. Many of the fanboys won be able to afford the high maintenance that increases exponentially when tracking it. So now you have the mag hype car that you can talk about what it "could" do on the track, while you get left by M6's, AMG's and the like on the highway. There will always be more vids like that than GT-R's on the track.

All for a car that is still a drivers race with a Z06 and TT, and when the tires are equalized, as will happen most times at the track, you will probably find yourself eating dust.

And if you count the maintenance of tracking over a period of time, the GT-R after so many years will end up being well over the 100k range. You cant even get track tires without buying new wheels. And the MSRP has increased once already and will increase again next year. So how is that value???? By the time the Spec-V comes out, the base GT-R will be amost 90k. And the fanboys actually think the Spec will only be 100k. HAHAHAHAH

 

And who would realistcally buy an out of warranty GT-R??? You have no idea how many launches are on the tranny, and the max limit is said to be 200. If someone has it for three years, that's a big risk. If you choose wrong, it's 18k on your used car (just to keep it running).

The expensive annual service costs are now yours to foot as well as the usual Ferrari type maintenance, which will result in a tank in value of the used and out of warranty cars. So now you have to pay 18k (plus crazy maintenance) to keep your GT-R, that's now worth 35k running. No one will touch them with a ten foot pole.

Nissan didnt think this out very well. This car will not hold value like the NSX/Supra over here, that tranny killed it.





Some people think Nissan beat Porsche to the punch by releasing the GT-R with DSG before Porsche did with the PDK. But who's laughing now??? Porsche had enough sense to can the idea for the release of the 997 TT when they blew up the test PDK's, Nissan put them in there anyways knowing they would blow up, and tried to give themselves an out with the disclaimer and control it with the VDC. I'm glad Porsche waited to do things right.

 

Damned fun read, I've got to side with the porsche owners.. it makes no sense how the GTR can keep up on the straights, Ive had the fortunate luck to roll on with a GTR, and its pretty even with me edging away by mid 3rd, and the gtr reeling me back in once im into 5th after 115. I trap 115 mph. A z06 slaughters me from a roll in that same mph range.. its not even close, its just a whoring.. and for the gtr to keep up on the straights, thats soo so wrong.


05 EVO VIII, usual boltons, IX turbo @ 24 psi on 93.

 

05's were Evo VIII???? So the Evo IX was only for three years???

 

Like the old saying goes... cheap, reliable, fast...choose two.

 

pc or mac?

 

Linux, of course!

 

ubuntu...