997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
#121
BTW, I do acknowledge that the GT-R is good for Porsche furture owners. The fact that Porsche AG bought a GT-R implies they are well aware of this competitor. There is no doubt in my mind the GT-R will force PAG to make the updated Turbo achieve ring time at least in the mid 7:40's. Otherwise it will be old news before its birth.
Competition is good.
Competition is good.
#122
What more to argue affter this most critical piece of information, from the GT-R's chief engineer:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065 <STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCANPHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCANPHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCANPHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE>Quote: But Mizuno suggested the GT-R could get anywhere from 7:44 on up, with most laps coming in between 7:55 and 7:58.<O></O>
Could everyone please repeat after me and stop all arguments : GT-R is fast, but not as fast as Nissan has claimed, not 7:29, not even 7:38. Most likely around 7:44 to 7:58. Nissan's own chief engineer said this.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065 <STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCANPHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCANPHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CCANPHA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5 Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE>Quote: But Mizuno suggested the GT-R could get anywhere from 7:44 on up, with most laps coming in between 7:55 and 7:58.<O></O>
Could everyone please repeat after me and stop all arguments : GT-R is fast, but not as fast as Nissan has claimed, not 7:29, not even 7:38. Most likely around 7:44 to 7:58. Nissan's own chief engineer said this.
#123
There is argument, and there is reasonable argument . Although there is no proof, it's extremely unlikely for an engineer group, after how many years of development, to find a few tweaks in the final months before production, to improve the ring time by 20 seconds. This includes stiffening springs, unless you make it to the point it's not driveable on the streets.
This is the point of the argument: I don't deny a very good car's spot in the sun (the GT-R), but Nissan should not make this unreasonable claim. And as reasonable sports car fans , we shouldn't continue the myth.
For a near 4000 lbs car with 500 or so hp to achieve that time of 7:29 is unreasonable, in fact defies the law of physics.
This is the point of the argument: I don't deny a very good car's spot in the sun (the GT-R), but Nissan should not make this unreasonable claim. And as reasonable sports car fans , we shouldn't continue the myth.
For a near 4000 lbs car with 500 or so hp to achieve that time of 7:29 is unreasonable, in fact defies the law of physics.
#124
Oops I meant in the final months before INTRODUCTION. Extremely extremely unlikely, in fact impossible, to make changes that close to introduction of car that results in 20 second ring time improvement.
#125
This is great! Remember Mazda's false horsepower claims on the RX8's???
They offered buy backs including the tax!
They offered buy backs including the tax!
#126
I dont know where did you take 20 seconds... the official times were 7:38 and 7.29, those 7:50s werent official it was just run down the Nuderburg ring with stop watch probably.
Bottom line there's 2 times, 7:38 and 7:29. I belive that this car is capable of doing mid 7:30 with great driver.
#127
7:45-7:54 - those are the times I agree with.
#128
Nissan today announced that its GT-R supercar achieved a lap time at the infamous Nürburgring in Germany of seven minutes and 29 seconds. Recorded on April 16 and 17, the GT-R used was a base specification car and fitted with the standard Japanese market tyres. Driven by GT-R chief test driver Tochio Suzuki, this latest lap time beats the previous fastest time for the GT-R by nine seconds.
The previous best lap time for GT-R of 7:38, also driven by Suzuki, was one of the fastest laps achieved by a production car despite conditions being slightly damp on two corners.
"At last year's testing, we were frustrated by the conditions at the Nürburgring, always believing that the GT-R could go under seven minutes 30 seconds," said Kazutoshi Mizuno, Chief Vehicle Engineer for GT-R. "Below seven minutes 30 seconds, the GT-R proves it is among the fastest mass-production cars in the world. We set out to build a multi-performance supercar accessible to anyone, anytime and anywhere – I believe the GT-R has delivered that promise."
Deliveries of the all-new GT-R began in Japan in December 2007. Sales in the US and Canada start in July and extend to Europe and other markets over the next 12 months.
anyone have an email of a Suzuki guy? We need to bring him in here to clear things up
The previous best lap time for GT-R of 7:38, also driven by Suzuki, was one of the fastest laps achieved by a production car despite conditions being slightly damp on two corners.
"At last year's testing, we were frustrated by the conditions at the Nürburgring, always believing that the GT-R could go under seven minutes 30 seconds," said Kazutoshi Mizuno, Chief Vehicle Engineer for GT-R. "Below seven minutes 30 seconds, the GT-R proves it is among the fastest mass-production cars in the world. We set out to build a multi-performance supercar accessible to anyone, anytime and anywhere – I believe the GT-R has delivered that promise."
Deliveries of the all-new GT-R began in Japan in December 2007. Sales in the US and Canada start in July and extend to Europe and other markets over the next 12 months.
anyone have an email of a Suzuki guy? We need to bring him in here to clear things up
#129
How about this?
If you do not track on a consistent basis then limit yourselves from the conversation.
I am outta here then
If you do not track on a consistent basis then limit yourselves from the conversation.
I am outta here then
#130
well this is what i say....
F*ck the GTR too much BS behind this car guys, Nissan cannot make a performance car like porsche without any BS. Porsche builds a straight forward high class car, while nissan builds a low class piece of crap, makes alot of hype about it, and at the end of it we have no idea whats the truth about it..
F*ck the GTR too much BS behind this car guys, Nissan cannot make a performance car like porsche without any BS. Porsche builds a straight forward high class car, while nissan builds a low class piece of crap, makes alot of hype about it, and at the end of it we have no idea whats the truth about it..
#131
well this is what i say....
F*ck the GTR too much BS behind this car guys, Nissan cannot make a performance car like porsche without any BS. Porsche builds a straight forward high class car, while nissan builds a low class piece of crap, makes alot of hype about it, and at the end of it we have no idea whats the truth about it..
F*ck the GTR too much BS behind this car guys, Nissan cannot make a performance car like porsche without any BS. Porsche builds a straight forward high class car, while nissan builds a low class piece of crap, makes alot of hype about it, and at the end of it we have no idea whats the truth about it..
Last edited by jaeS4; 10-01-2008 at 02:53 PM.
#132
There is argument, and there is reasonable argument . Although there is no proof, it's extremely unlikely for an engineer group, after how many years of development, to find a few tweaks in the final months before production, to improve the ring time by 20 seconds. This includes stiffening springs, unless you make it to the point it's not driveable on the streets.
This is the point of the argument: I don't deny a very good car's spot in the sun (the GT-R), but Nissan should not make this unreasonable claim. And as reasonable sports car fans , we shouldn't continue the myth.
For a near 4000 lbs car with 500 or so hp to achieve that time of 7:29 is unreasonable, in fact defies the law of physics.
This is the point of the argument: I don't deny a very good car's spot in the sun (the GT-R), but Nissan should not make this unreasonable claim. And as reasonable sports car fans , we shouldn't continue the myth.
For a near 4000 lbs car with 500 or so hp to achieve that time of 7:29 is unreasonable, in fact defies the law of physics.
#133
Smoking gun...
All right, this was bugging me, so I've run some more numbers, and I'm now pretty convinced that the Ring GTR record was set with a car with around 490 awhp.
Explanation as follows: The other recent Ring contender is the Viper ACR; ~3490 lbs with driver, ~517 rwhp, tons of downforce but the aero of a barn-door (likely .44 cd and ~1.88 m^2 based on a 192 mph top speed). We have video of that car with a clock in the corner vs the ZR1:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08nxInpgTGc&feature=related[/media]
The GTR has much better aero, so at some point it will catch and pass the ACR given a long enough straight, however if you run the numbers with the 420 rwhp GTR the GTR should accelerate slower until ~172 mph, a speed which it shouldn't be able to exceed on the bridge to bridge measurement. So the ACR should be faster down that straight by a pretty reasonable amount, as it will always be pulling harder, and much harder at lower speeds.
But it's not. I time the GTR .3 seconds faster than the ACR from bridge to bridge, which works out to roughly 2 mph faster average speed. Since the viper has a much better power to weight ratio it should be much faster at lower speeds, so the GTR would need lots more than stock power to pass it (by a lot) on the straight.
I see two other possible explanations, but I don't buy either of them.
First, if the GTR came off the corner with much more speed it could carry more speed under the first bridge and onto the straight. You can time this in the video too, though- I get 6.6 seconds from the point you can see down the straight until the first bridge for the ACR vs 7.2 seconds for the GTR. Now the view out the windshields is a little different, but not nearly that much- the ACR is clearly much faster off of that last corner and also hits the first bridge with significantly more speed.
The second possible explanation is wind. However the ZR1 and ACR times are pretty much what you'd expect relative to one another, and it seems very unlikely they both had the same head-wind on their best runs. Then there could be a tail wind for the GTR, but if you time the other record GTR run (the 7:38) it's only .1 second slower bridge to bridge. It's also very unlikely they both had the same tail wind...
So the GTR gets to the first bridge at a slower speed, but catches and passes the much more powerful ACR before the 2nd. How much power would it need to do that? If you give the GTR 490 awhp, the cross-over point at which it's faster than the ZR1 moves from ~172 mph down to ~146 mph, meaning the GTR is pulling harder for most of that straight, and can average a couple mph faster despite entering the straight slower. That's the same number I'd come up with to re-create its performance vs the ZR1 assuming no wind.
So waaay too much time spent on this, but I think I've convinced myself that there is almost no way that GTR was putting stock power levels out. My best estimate is ~490 whp or around 600 crank hp.
If anyone wants to shoot holes in the above feel free. The other videos I used are:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBZ5i15yVU8[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TMXr2ReNhk[/media]
[media]http://www.garage419.com/episode/419_20080710[/media]
-Pete
Explanation as follows: The other recent Ring contender is the Viper ACR; ~3490 lbs with driver, ~517 rwhp, tons of downforce but the aero of a barn-door (likely .44 cd and ~1.88 m^2 based on a 192 mph top speed). We have video of that car with a clock in the corner vs the ZR1:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08nxInpgTGc&feature=related[/media]
The GTR has much better aero, so at some point it will catch and pass the ACR given a long enough straight, however if you run the numbers with the 420 rwhp GTR the GTR should accelerate slower until ~172 mph, a speed which it shouldn't be able to exceed on the bridge to bridge measurement. So the ACR should be faster down that straight by a pretty reasonable amount, as it will always be pulling harder, and much harder at lower speeds.
But it's not. I time the GTR .3 seconds faster than the ACR from bridge to bridge, which works out to roughly 2 mph faster average speed. Since the viper has a much better power to weight ratio it should be much faster at lower speeds, so the GTR would need lots more than stock power to pass it (by a lot) on the straight.
I see two other possible explanations, but I don't buy either of them.
First, if the GTR came off the corner with much more speed it could carry more speed under the first bridge and onto the straight. You can time this in the video too, though- I get 6.6 seconds from the point you can see down the straight until the first bridge for the ACR vs 7.2 seconds for the GTR. Now the view out the windshields is a little different, but not nearly that much- the ACR is clearly much faster off of that last corner and also hits the first bridge with significantly more speed.
The second possible explanation is wind. However the ZR1 and ACR times are pretty much what you'd expect relative to one another, and it seems very unlikely they both had the same head-wind on their best runs. Then there could be a tail wind for the GTR, but if you time the other record GTR run (the 7:38) it's only .1 second slower bridge to bridge. It's also very unlikely they both had the same tail wind...
So the GTR gets to the first bridge at a slower speed, but catches and passes the much more powerful ACR before the 2nd. How much power would it need to do that? If you give the GTR 490 awhp, the cross-over point at which it's faster than the ZR1 moves from ~172 mph down to ~146 mph, meaning the GTR is pulling harder for most of that straight, and can average a couple mph faster despite entering the straight slower. That's the same number I'd come up with to re-create its performance vs the ZR1 assuming no wind.
So waaay too much time spent on this, but I think I've convinced myself that there is almost no way that GTR was putting stock power levels out. My best estimate is ~490 whp or around 600 crank hp.
If anyone wants to shoot holes in the above feel free. The other videos I used are:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBZ5i15yVU8[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TMXr2ReNhk[/media]
[media]http://www.garage419.com/episode/419_20080710[/media]
-Pete
All right, I ran the numbers in the sim accounting for power band, gear ratios, etc. It's a little rough because of the up-hill, but it looks like the Nissan would need to be pushing about 490 hp to the wheels to stay that close (~3mph average speed) to the ZR1. Lots of assumptions there- no headwind, they both hit the bridge at the same speed, etc. Without knowing the headwind it's impossible to tell (without gps or a video the the GTR's speeds) but it certainly does look a bit suspicious. The ZR1 should be much faster through that speed range. It's not a smoking gun, though- a ~15 mph headwind (or a tail wind for the GTR) would have the same effect.
BTW, I seriously doubt the claims of 10% driveline loss for the nissan. Gears are gears, and the friction losses are dictated by pitch, pressure angle, etc. So a 490 whp GTR would probably be a ~580-600 crank hp car. Unless there was a headwind... If I had to guess I'd say it was a combo of a rather "strong" nissan and a headwind for the ZR1... I didn't run the zonda numbers, but it certainly got to the 2nd bridge well faster than the vette.
BTW, I seriously doubt the claims of 10% driveline loss for the nissan. Gears are gears, and the friction losses are dictated by pitch, pressure angle, etc. So a 490 whp GTR would probably be a ~580-600 crank hp car. Unless there was a headwind... If I had to guess I'd say it was a combo of a rather "strong" nissan and a headwind for the ZR1... I didn't run the zonda numbers, but it certainly got to the 2nd bridge well faster than the vette.
Last edited by petevb; 10-01-2008 at 03:56 PM.
#134
#135
It's obvious the GTR had some kind of flash or tune to crank up the boost. That's the only way their 4000 pound car could match the 911 Turbo and deliver those kind of times. Nissan you're BUSTED! Just another in a long line of cars trying to benchmark the 911 Turbo and coming up short. Sadly, the only way they could do it was to cheat, why not just admit the real HP and call it a day.