997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
#302
10-06-2008, 01:42 AM
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...
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...
And keep in mind that the 7:50 time was achieved on a partially wet track while running with other cars. Common sense says that the time would be faster on a dry and closed track, which is the norm for Supertests. And HvS didn't say that the GT-R wouldn't go much faster. The article only stated that from that particular test, a time less than 7:40 seems optimistic.
Sport Auto only accepts production models for its Supertests, and they usually only test TUV-approved cars. So no GT-R Supertest until next year. I'm definitely looking forward to it, whatever the results may be.
#303
10-06-2008, 01:49 AM
If Porsche (or its representative) can lie about that time, why not about the whole thing?
#304
10-06-2008, 02:02 AM
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
Some more times for comparison's sake:
7:48 - 997 GT3 and GT3 RS (Sport Auto, HvS driving)
7:42 and 7:45 - 997 GT3 RS (manufacturer, WR driving)
And now there's that 7:38 time for the 997TT driven by a Porsche test engineer. Faster than WR's time for the 997 GT3 RS?
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? 
As I've outlined in my other posts, I'm just curious about the times, that's all. Lots of room for errors and even lies, both by Porsche and Nissan.
Last edited by Henjie; 10-06-2008 at 02:14 AM.
#305
10-06-2008, 02:16 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 
Actually, the 996TT is 2 seconds slower (7:56) per Sport Auto's Supertest. C6 Z06 is 5 seconds faster than the 997TT at 7:49. Since the general consensus is that the Z06 is faster than the 997TT on the track, I think it's reasonable to believe that a stock 997TT is a low 7:50s car around the 'Ring.
Some more times for comparison's sake:
7:48 - 997 GT3 and GT3 RS (Sport Auto, HvS driving)
7:42 and 7:45 - 997 GT3 RS (manufacturer, WR driving)
And now there's that 7:38 time for the 997TT driven by a Porsche test engineer. Faster than WR's time for the 997 GT3 RS?
No, I'm not asking that. As I've outlined in my other posts, I'm just curious about the times, that's all. Lots of room for errors and even lies, both by Porsche and Nissan.
Some more times for comparison's sake:
7:48 - 997 GT3 and GT3 RS (Sport Auto, HvS driving)
7:42 and 7:45 - 997 GT3 RS (manufacturer, WR driving)
And now there's that 7:38 time for the 997TT driven by a Porsche test engineer. Faster than WR's time for the 997 GT3 RS?
No, I'm not asking that. As I've outlined in my other posts, I'm just curious about the times, that's all. Lots of room for errors and even lies, both by Porsche and Nissan.
Go and watch Sport Auto's test of the Z06 on youtube. The Z06 is faster than 7:49, Horst screwed the car out of a few seconds with missed shifts. The Z06 is faster than the TT on PS2's, Sport Auto tested the TT on MPSC, in which case the TT can certainly be faster than the Z06. Then go watch the vid of the TT they dont even finish the lap. Something is suspect. The 997 TT would essentially be slower than the 996 TT because the 996 TT test was on PS2's vs MPSC. And we all know that isnt likely at all.
Sport Auto is good, but far from the law of anything. And they've obviously layed an egg on some of the tests. So it's not really reasonable to think the TT on MPSC is a low 7:50's car at the ring. Take a few seconds off the Z06 time, and make the TT faster than that by a few seconds, and suddenly the 7:38 doesnt seem too far fetched for a Porsche guy.
But it is reasonable to think the TT on MPSC is faster than the GT-R given most any of the results so far. Maybe not 7:38, who knows, but the evidence is there to support the TT being faster than both the Z06 and GT-R when on MPSC. The difference being that Horst put 100km on the GT-R, and the supertest consists of a warmup lap and go.
Last edited by heavychevy; 10-06-2008 at 02:18 AM.
#306
10-06-2008, 02:18 AM
I am a fan of both cars and the engineering that has been placed into both of these monsters, however, that being said.... I realize that there are a lot of variables to consider in these ring times that were posted for the GTR, but something just does not add up. I am not saying that these cars were ringers, however, they may have been, however, it is also very likely that Nissan is understating the horsepower that this thing is putting out. Some will say it is due to the "magical" low-friction bearings that Nissan used to limit drivetrain losses, thus generating up to 90% of the engine's power to the road. Hmmm.... that maybe so, however, I have spent a little time doing a patent search for these bearings and have not found anything regarding them. I am not saying they don't exist, for I am no patent attorney or agent that has access to all the files concerning previous inventions, but I would just like to see the design and composition of these improved bearings to reduce friction. Were they plasma coated or a new design? What's the deal?
I am more inclined to believe that nissan just underrated the car due to customer fear of GR 6 transmission failure, if the power levels would be stated too close to the transmission's limits of functionality and preservation, there would be too much fear in commitment to a destined to failure piece of equipment. However, in order to strengthen the internals they would have had to use denser... forged materials, which would defeat the purpose of the extra power, creating more mass to rotate, generating more driveline loss and extra overall weight for the vehicle. My thought on the matter is that the 7:38 is probably legit.... the 7:29 quite a stretch. I am really into engineering and physics and something just seems a little off on these stated times.... however, as I previously mentioned there are a lot of variables to consider, it is just that those variables seem to still fall into the category of this vehicle is most likely either juiced up a little, or the power statements are grossly underrated.
Some believe this understatement is due to insurance, I feel as though the underwriters at insurance companies are most likely more concerned with performance capabilites and cost of parts to replace than they are with stated horsepower figures. If someone has access to the schematics of these low-friction bearings that Nissan has eluded to I would love to see them... I am quite intrigued. But like I said, the 7:29 at the claimed power, even claimed to the wheels does seem to be a bit of a stretch, even with all the aero, and chassis technology that has been employed in this machine.
Either way both the 911 and GTR are great cars, we should all just appreciate them both for what they were intended for and capable of, even if we are not sure exactly what their true capabilities are
I am more inclined to believe that nissan just underrated the car due to customer fear of GR 6 transmission failure, if the power levels would be stated too close to the transmission's limits of functionality and preservation, there would be too much fear in commitment to a destined to failure piece of equipment. However, in order to strengthen the internals they would have had to use denser... forged materials, which would defeat the purpose of the extra power, creating more mass to rotate, generating more driveline loss and extra overall weight for the vehicle. My thought on the matter is that the 7:38 is probably legit.... the 7:29 quite a stretch. I am really into engineering and physics and something just seems a little off on these stated times.... however, as I previously mentioned there are a lot of variables to consider, it is just that those variables seem to still fall into the category of this vehicle is most likely either juiced up a little, or the power statements are grossly underrated.
Some believe this understatement is due to insurance, I feel as though the underwriters at insurance companies are most likely more concerned with performance capabilites and cost of parts to replace than they are with stated horsepower figures. If someone has access to the schematics of these low-friction bearings that Nissan has eluded to I would love to see them... I am quite intrigued. But like I said, the 7:29 at the claimed power, even claimed to the wheels does seem to be a bit of a stretch, even with all the aero, and chassis technology that has been employed in this machine.
Either way both the 911 and GTR are great cars, we should all just appreciate them both for what they were intended for and capable of, even if we are not sure exactly what their true capabilities are
I hate to have to quote myself, but I don't want to have to explain my reasoning or question again. I figured that there were enough individuals hopping onto this thread that would be willing to tackle this question that I had concerning these bearings that were used and my concern with the possible underrating of the horsepower.
Now I am not expecting the porsche gentlemen to address this as much as the ones that are supporting Nissan's claims, as I have already stated, I do not believe that the 7:29 could have been achieved with the officially stated specifications of the car, however, I realize there are many variables to consider. But, to try something different than just stating articles, that can indeed be biased, please show me a little more support concerning these low friction bearings or the limits of power that the GR6 transmission can handle.... Seriously, I am not necessarily trying to disprove Nissan's claims, I am just curious, because it still doesn't seem to add up. If anyone could find the intellectual property i.e. filed patent for these pieces of equipment in terms of design and composition, I would greatly appreciate it. I have already spent some time doing patent and application searches with no information yielded concerning the items. I figured since there are obviously some passionate GTR fans here, they may be willing to invest the time to enlighten me concerning this. I feel as though this could help answer if these times are legit, or for marketing purposes. Thank you in advance.
#307
10-06-2008, 02:33 AM
Go and watch Sport Auto's test of the Z06 on youtube. The Z06 is faster than 7:49, Horst screwed the car out of a few seconds with missed shifts. The Z06 is faster than the TT on PS2's, Sport Auto tested the TT on MPSC, in which case the TT can certainly be faster than the Z06. Then go watch the vid of the TT they dont even finish the lap. Something is suspect. The 997 TT would essentially be slower than the 996 TT because the 996 TT test was on PS2's vs MPSC. And we all know that isnt likely at all.
Sport Auto is good, but far from the law of anything. And they've obviously layed an egg on some of the tests. So it's not really reasonable to think the TT on MPSC is a low 7:50's car at the ring. Take a few seconds off the Z06 time, and make the TT faster than that by a few seconds, and suddenly the 7:38 doesnt seem too far fetched for a Porsche guy.
Sport Auto is good, but far from the law of anything. And they've obviously layed an egg on some of the tests. So it's not really reasonable to think the TT on MPSC is a low 7:50's car at the ring. Take a few seconds off the Z06 time, and make the TT faster than that by a few seconds, and suddenly the 7:38 doesnt seem too far fetched for a Porsche guy.
But it is reasonable to think the TT on MPSC is faster than the GT-R given most any of the results so far. Maybe not 7:38, who knows, but the evidence is there to support the TT being faster than both the Z06 and GT-R when on MPSC.
Do you also believe that around the 'Ring, a Porsche test engineer driving a 997TT is faster than WR driving a 997 GT3 RS?
The difference being that Horst put 100km on the GT-R, and the supertest consists of a warmup lap and go.
#308
10-06-2008, 03:05 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551
I hate to dissapoint you BldGBloc but you will find more insults and uneducated blandering before you will ever get an intelligent response from the Nissan camp. All of the acceleration evidence supports the GT-R being a bit slower accelerating than the 997 TT. To the extent that you woud expect for the 200 extra lbs. I call b.s. on the claimed drivetrain loss, and the super bearings. The accleration suggests the car is 3800 lbs and 480-500 hp tops.
Consider the M6 with 500 hp and over 3900 lbs traps 118-120 with a slower transmission and totally different gearing. Subtract 100 lbs and 20 hp and it still points to the GT-R being in that range, there is nothing special in that area.
Weight to power:
M6 3900/500 = 7.8
GT-R 3800/480 = 7.91
GT3 3250/415 = 7.83
All of the above trap 118-120 and it's likely the M6 and GT3 could walk away after 130 due to the GT-R's gearing which combined with the tranny is the only reason the GT-R can keep up in the first place. Well the gearing is a liability after 100mph where the M6 gets stronger and the GT3 has great gearing for as well.
If people woud grasp the ease with which a Z06, ZR-1, Zonda can fly past and leave this car, then they would understand the problem with the GT-R being almost the fastest car we have video on during the back stretch at the nurburgring. And in certain sections it's much faster on that straight than ANY of the other cars (and I dont mean the corner exit)..........
There is overwhelming evidence to support Nissan cheating with the press cars (which will be destroyed) and ring prototypes..
And if anyone has been questioning my thoughts on Nissan's prolific media assault, consider that Nissan has got the press to rant and rave about the launch control when using it even once can void your drivetrain warranty and cost you 15-18k. BUT THAT'S NOT BEEN MENTIONED BY ONE MAGAZINE, ALL THEY DO IS QUOTE 0-60/QUARTER MILE TIMES THAT ARE NOT ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT VOIDING THE DRIVETRAIN WARRANTY. I'm telling you Nissan has played all of their enthusiasts.
Consider the M6 with 500 hp and over 3900 lbs traps 118-120 with a slower transmission and totally different gearing. Subtract 100 lbs and 20 hp and it still points to the GT-R being in that range, there is nothing special in that area.
Weight to power:
M6 3900/500 = 7.8
GT-R 3800/480 = 7.91
GT3 3250/415 = 7.83
All of the above trap 118-120 and it's likely the M6 and GT3 could walk away after 130 due to the GT-R's gearing which combined with the tranny is the only reason the GT-R can keep up in the first place. Well the gearing is a liability after 100mph where the M6 gets stronger and the GT3 has great gearing for as well.
If people woud grasp the ease with which a Z06, ZR-1, Zonda can fly past and leave this car, then they would understand the problem with the GT-R being almost the fastest car we have video on during the back stretch at the nurburgring. And in certain sections it's much faster on that straight than ANY of the other cars (and I dont mean the corner exit)..........
There is overwhelming evidence to support Nissan cheating with the press cars (which will be destroyed) and ring prototypes..
And if anyone has been questioning my thoughts on Nissan's prolific media assault, consider that Nissan has got the press to rant and rave about the launch control when using it even once can void your drivetrain warranty and cost you 15-18k. BUT THAT'S NOT BEEN MENTIONED BY ONE MAGAZINE, ALL THEY DO IS QUOTE 0-60/QUARTER MILE TIMES THAT ARE NOT ACHIEVABLE WITHOUT VOIDING THE DRIVETRAIN WARRANTY. I'm telling you Nissan has played all of their enthusiasts.
#309
10-06-2008, 03:13 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 Not necessarily if we look at this case. Wet track, open track, pre-production car. Heck, there's such a thing as overachieving.
THE WHOLE TRACK WAS NOT WET!!!!! WALTER TEST MOST ALL OF THE PORSCHES IN TRAFFIC.
It goes both ways. I can use your own arguments for the GT-R. What if the preliminary GT-R test was done on a dry and closed track? What if current production GT-Rs are loads better than the one HvS drove last year (fact: development doesn't end with release)? Lots of assumptions and what ifs don't make a good argument.What if's?? I didnt use any of those. Only evidence that the times can be mixed up a bit.
Not being disrespectful at all but which results? And what evidence?
The fact that in many tests the MPSC would be enough to propel the TT ahead of either car based on the lap times. MPSC are at least 2-4 seconds faster than PS2's on any given circuit and maybe more depending on the length.
Do you also believe that around the 'Ring, a Porsche test engineer driving a 997TT is faster than WR driving a 997 GT3 RS?
Like I said, Walter tests in traffic, so it is conceivable given the long straights that the TT on R-comps could be faster.
100km is what? Not even 5 full laps. And the preliminary test is not a full-bore attack as is the case with Supertests. And again, open and wet track vs. closed and dry track (conditions during the 997TT Supertest).
THE WHOLE TRACK WAS NOT WET!!!!! WALTER TEST MOST ALL OF THE PORSCHES IN TRAFFIC.
It goes both ways. I can use your own arguments for the GT-R. What if the preliminary GT-R test was done on a dry and closed track? What if current production GT-Rs are loads better than the one HvS drove last year (fact: development doesn't end with release)? Lots of assumptions and what ifs don't make a good argument.What if's?? I didnt use any of those. Only evidence that the times can be mixed up a bit.
Not being disrespectful at all but which results? And what evidence?
The fact that in many tests the MPSC would be enough to propel the TT ahead of either car based on the lap times. MPSC are at least 2-4 seconds faster than PS2's on any given circuit and maybe more depending on the length.
Do you also believe that around the 'Ring, a Porsche test engineer driving a 997TT is faster than WR driving a 997 GT3 RS?
Like I said, Walter tests in traffic, so it is conceivable given the long straights that the TT on R-comps could be faster.
100km is what? Not even 5 full laps. And the preliminary test is not a full-bore attack as is the case with Supertests. And again, open and wet track vs. closed and dry track (conditions during the 997TT Supertest).
#310
10-06-2008, 04:08 AM
Yes, WR tests in traffic. So I ask this again, how do you explain a Porsche test engineer driving a 997TT being faster than WR driving a 997 GT3 RS in similar conditions?
The fact that in many tests the MPSC would be enough to propel the TT ahead of either car based on the lap times. MPSC are at least 2-4 seconds faster than PS2's on any given circuit and maybe more depending on the length.
Like I said, Walter tests in traffic, so it is conceivable given the long straights that the TT on R-comps could be faster.
5 Laps compared to 2 total, ever in the car make a big difference dont ya think???? It would take at least a couple to learn the car, the more risk involved (tires,rwd) the less likely to push the limits.
#313
10-06-2008, 05:32 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Knoxville,Tennessee
Posts: 4,447
Rep Power: 214
.....
#314
10-06-2008, 05:57 AM
This would be easy... Porsche authorized to buy a production GT-R throughout the land(s) of their pick... and Nissan to do the same with a 997TT... trade at the track so a driver from the supportive company could drive their produced car and then see what both can do.
Of course, I would think a POC from the relative company would have to be with each car from purchase to delivery making sure the other didn't tweak down their alternate purchases.
<O
</O
Or... maybe I missed it and something like this is already occurring.
Of course, I would think a POC from the relative company would have to be with each car from purchase to delivery making sure the other didn't tweak down their alternate purchases.
<O
</OOr... maybe I missed it and something like this is already occurring.
Last edited by Almo; 10-06-2008 at 06:09 AM.
#315
10-06-2008, 06:28 AM
actually, what they should do is go to unsuspecting dealers and get an off the shelf car. Inspect them accordingly to make sure all is legit, tires, etc. Then get their own best drivers and race the Ring. They should include the Vette and Viper as well. All showroom stockers...