Drivers Republic GT2 v GTR around the Nurburgring
#62
11-25-2008, 03:03 PM
In my opinion this test really just proves Nissan's claim. The GTR used here was early JDM GTR, before the revision, on Bridgestones. Nissan stated when the car was planning to run the 7:38 time that 7:40s -7:50s was, what the car would run on average on Bridgestones. So considering it was a wet track the GTR did better then you would expect in this specification.
It also shows that the GTR on Dunlaps would have been about as fast as the GT2 in this test, if we go by Nissan's 5-6 second time increase by switching to the Dunlaps.
So if we subtract, 5-6 seconds for switching to the Dunlaps, 17 seconds for a dry track (unless porsche was lying about their laptime as well), 3 seconds for the revisions made to USDM and later JDM GTR's, we would already be at a 7:29 and we haven't even factored Suzuki into the equation, a retired F1 driver who has spent more time in the car then anyone else.
So like i said before this test really just proves Nissan's time official, but that fact is overshadowed by the fact the GTR lost in thier test.
It also shows that the GTR on Dunlaps would have been about as fast as the GT2 in this test, if we go by Nissan's 5-6 second time increase by switching to the Dunlaps.
So if we subtract, 5-6 seconds for switching to the Dunlaps, 17 seconds for a dry track (unless porsche was lying about their laptime as well), 3 seconds for the revisions made to USDM and later JDM GTR's, we would already be at a 7:29 and we haven't even factored Suzuki into the equation, a retired F1 driver who has spent more time in the car then anyone else.
So like i said before this test really just proves Nissan's time official, but that fact is overshadowed by the fact the GTR lost in thier test.
Err... Alrite let me just say one thing about this 'F1 driver'... It is going to sound VERY rude but damn i have kept it bottled up for to long. I don't want to sound racist, because I have dated many asian woman. And I can admit that Asians are fantastic in many things BUT their strength isnt in driving. I'm sorry. They just suck at driving, just because hes an ex f1 driver dosent mean ****. Keyword, hes an EX f1 driver. No Japanese driver or asian driver has made a firm standing in F1. And the fact that an F1 car is very, vastly different then a street car. Just because you are great in f1 does not mean you will be good in a street car. Look at what Schumacher said to his brother Ralph.... alrite i said it. My standing on this issue ? The GTR is a great machine, but i do think Nissan fked up and did the time in a ringer. They should have just sold the car with the ~650hp it needs to get that time and it would have been perfect, and i would have given them the win. But they shot themselfs in their own foot. End of story.
And the reason why the GTR is being compared to the GT2 is because you GTR's fans are saying how its faster then the daddy of 911s. So they brought out the daddy to see if its true. And it failed. Thats why the gt2 was brough in. Use some fken logic you damn trools. Okay I'm really losing it, im out ( i have no patience for ignorent pp)
#64
11-25-2008, 03:16 PM
Sure but my point is give me one example of an Asian driver making a good stand in F1. These GTR owners are making it sound like this guy is god just because he was in f1 for a day. I have watched F1 for many years and i have forgoten about this dude. Why ? Maybe because he sucks ? Look at the past 10 years of drivers. Most are either European or Latin that have the most talent in driving. Anyone can get into a F1 as longest they have the sponsorship and money. I'm not here to bash on a race, im just here to say i do not believe at all that this dude can drive any better then Walter or Chris Harris. With the GTr's supporters, its like saying omg this guy did it in 7:29 imagen if MS would get his hands on it it would be a 6 min car. My point is no way jose. What if MS did drive the car and he got a 7:54 ? his credentials are higher then Suzukis by far.. but what what are the GTR's supporters going to say then ? What will be their excuse ?
#65
11-25-2008, 03:21 PM
The GTR also ran 7:45-7:50 on dry track as well so you can't just subtract 17 seconds and a few here and there and say 7:29 on a 485hp with 3900lbs would still do the ring in 7:29. Your calculations puts it at 7:29 without Suzuki which would make it was 7:23 - 7:25?
Nissan's claims has been the problem. They are claiming A LOT!
Nissan's claims has been the problem. They are claiming A LOT!
And I know you just can't subtract seconds here and there and the result be taken as fact. But I'm just pointing out that the time is more of a possibility then everyone's thinking, and if anything this tests proves it.
But between tires, the revisions, Suzuki, and a dry track, a 7:29 time could happen. Especially if everything's ideal.
#66
11-25-2008, 03:24 PM
I've been lurking on the site for a while, I just decided to join a few days ago, god forbid someone be new. 
#67
11-25-2008, 03:27 PM
In my opinion this test really just proves Nissan's claim. The GTR used here was early JDM GTR, before the revision, on Bridgestones. Nissan stated when the car was planning to run the 7:38 time that 7:40s -7:50s was, what the car would run on average on Bridgestones. So considering it was a wet track the GTR did better then you would expect in this specification.
It also shows that the GTR on Dunlaps would have been about as fast as the GT2 in this test, if we go by Nissan's 5-6 second time increase by switching to the Dunlaps.
So if we subtract, 5-6 seconds for switching to the Dunlaps, 17 seconds for a dry track (unless porsche was lying about their laptime as well), 3 seconds for the revisions made to USDM and later JDM GTR's, we would already be at a 7:29 and we haven't even factored Suzuki into the equation, a retired F1 driver who has spent more time in the car then anyone else.
So like i said before this test really just proves Nissan's time official, but that fact is overshadowed by the fact the GTR lost in thier test.
It also shows that the GTR on Dunlaps would have been about as fast as the GT2 in this test, if we go by Nissan's 5-6 second time increase by switching to the Dunlaps.
So if we subtract, 5-6 seconds for switching to the Dunlaps, 17 seconds for a dry track (unless porsche was lying about their laptime as well), 3 seconds for the revisions made to USDM and later JDM GTR's, we would already be at a 7:29 and we haven't even factored Suzuki into the equation, a retired F1 driver who has spent more time in the car then anyone else.
So like i said before this test really just proves Nissan's time official, but that fact is overshadowed by the fact the GTR lost in thier test.
Uh, no. 17 seconds was not credited for dry track if you read the article, 6 seconds maybe considering it wasnt drenched. It was driver confidence and MPSC that kept the GT2 from being that much farther ahead. 4-5 seconds for the DunLOPS (not dunlaps), another 5 for Suzuki and you have a low 7:40 and being generous give 3 seconds to the updates and you're around the 7:38. There is no where to get the other 9 seconds from. I'll give it a low 7:40, high 7:30 in perfect conditions with stock hp. But we already know the stock hp isnt an option on the ring GT-R's.
#68
11-25-2008, 03:38 PM
Err... Alrite let me just say one thing about this 'F1 driver'... It is going to sound VERY rude but damn i have kept it bottled up for to long. I don't want to sound racist, because I have dated many asian woman. And I can admit that Asians are fantastic in many things BUT their strength isnt in driving. I'm sorry. They just suck at driving, just because hes an ex f1 driver dosent mean ****. Keyword, hes an EX f1 driver. No Japanese driver or asian driver has made a firm standing in F1. And the fact that an F1 car is very, vastly different then a street car. Just because you are great in f1 does not mean you will be good in a street car. Look at what Schumacher said to his brother Ralph.... alrite i said it. My standing on this issue ? The GTR is a great machine, but i do think Nissan fked up and did the time in a ringer. They should have just sold the car with the ~650hp it needs to get that time and it would have been perfect, and i would have given them the win. But they shot themselfs in their own foot. End of story.
And the reason why the GTR is being compared to the GT2 is because you GTR's fans are saying how its faster then the daddy of 911s. So they brought out the daddy to see if its true. And it failed. Thats why the gt2 was brough in. Use some fken logic you damn trools. Okay I'm really losing it, im out ( i have no patience for ignorent pp)
And the reason why the GTR is being compared to the GT2 is because you GTR's fans are saying how its faster then the daddy of 911s. So they brought out the daddy to see if its true. And it failed. Thats why the gt2 was brough in. Use some fken logic you damn trools. Okay I'm really losing it, im out ( i have no patience for ignorent pp)
I'm also not saying that Suzuki is some kind of God, I mentioned that Suzuki is a F1 driver simply to recognize, that he has some driving skill. Where Suzuki would be better then Harris is the fact that he has tons more experience in the GTR. He's done thousands of laps on the ring with the GTR. While Harris has done at most about 10 or so.
#69
11-25-2008, 04:16 PM
Sure but my point is give me one example of an Asian driver making a good stand in F1. These GTR owners are making it sound like this guy is god just because he was in f1 for a day. I have watched F1 for many years and i have forgoten about this dude. Why ? Maybe because he sucks ? Look at the past 10 years of drivers. Most are either European or Latin that have the most talent in driving. Anyone can get into a F1 as longest they have the sponsorship and money. I'm not here to bash on a race, im just here to say i do not believe at all that this dude can drive any better then Walter or Chris Harris. With the GTr's supporters, its like saying omg this guy did it in 7:29 imagen if MS would get his hands on it it would be a 6 min car. My point is no way jose. What if MS did drive the car and he got a 7:54 ? his credentials are higher then Suzukis by far.. but what what are the GTR's supporters going to say then ? What will be their excuse ?
#71
11-25-2008, 05:09 PM
The only other GTR I've seen run the ring was by Sport Auto in a similar spec GTR on a "get a feel for the car" run, i also believe that run was in the wet as well. I haven't heard of any other runs of the car on the ring besides this and Nissan's run.
And I know you just can't subtract seconds here and there and the result be taken as fact. But I'm just pointing out that the time is more of a possibility then everyone's thinking, and if anything this tests proves it.
But between tires, the revisions, Suzuki, and a dry track, a 7:29 time could happen. Especially if everything's ideal.
And I know you just can't subtract seconds here and there and the result be taken as fact. But I'm just pointing out that the time is more of a possibility then everyone's thinking, and if anything this tests proves it.
But between tires, the revisions, Suzuki, and a dry track, a 7:29 time could happen. Especially if everything's ideal.
Not based on your logic it isnt. This test proves just the opposite.
Chris SAID, he didnt think 7:29 was possible, not even close. You are trying to twist his words to make it work, but 17 seconds for dry track isnt likely.
Not to mention Sport Auto's practice lap in the Z06 was only 2 seconds different from the real lap. 7:50 is not "get a feel for it" pace.
At least use ALL of the information and not selectively to try and prove a non existant point.
#72
11-25-2008, 05:16 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
What did I say? Never fails. The same ole line.
You sign up as tokyotuner, go straight to GT-R threads to argue about the GT-R without taking any time to post in a porsche thread.........
YET YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BEING ACCUSED OF BEING A NISSAN FAN? LOLOLOLOLOL
#73
11-25-2008, 05:46 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
What did I say? Never fails. The same ole line.
You sign up as tokyotuner, go straight to GT-R threads to argue about the GT-R without taking any time to post in a porsche thread.........
YET YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BEING ACCUSED OF BEING A NISSAN FAN? LOLOLOLOLOL
What did I say? Never fails. The same ole line.
You sign up as tokyotuner, go straight to GT-R threads to argue about the GT-R without taking any time to post in a porsche thread.........
YET YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BEING ACCUSED OF BEING A NISSAN FAN? LOLOLOLOLOL
Trommel:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...8-post526.html
eclivia
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...5-post143.html
and the rest...
#74
11-25-2008, 06:00 PM
Late to the party but great read. Ive always suspected the GTR's times from day one. Guys like Saurma, Ring God Walter R, Chris Harris etc who cant get anywhere near Nissans claims just add more fuel to that fire. A factory driver deffinately has an advantage as they are intimately in tune with the car but still drivers on the level of Rorhl should be at least in the same zip code imho.
#75
11-25-2008, 06:21 PM
Not based on your logic it isnt. This test proves just the opposite.
Chris SAID, he didnt think 7:29 was possible, not even close. You are trying to twist his words to make it work, but 17 seconds for dry track isnt likely.
Not to mention Sport Auto's practice lap in the Z06 was only 2 seconds different from the real lap. 7:50 is not "get a feel for it" pace.
At least use ALL of the information and not selectively to try and prove a non existant point.
Chris SAID, he didnt think 7:29 was possible, not even close. You are trying to twist his words to make it work, but 17 seconds for dry track isnt likely.
Not to mention Sport Auto's practice lap in the Z06 was only 2 seconds different from the real lap. 7:50 is not "get a feel for it" pace.
At least use ALL of the information and not selectively to try and prove a non existant point.
But despite that i don't fell that its gonna make up 17 seconds in just the drying of the track. It was more of "at the most" kind of thing
Also to those who say that the gap between the two would be larger if the track was dry. Nissan claimed 7:38 on a partially wet track, Porsche claimed 7:32 on a dry track, a 6 second gap. Just like in the wet, in this test. 9 seconds be made up by the switching to the dunlops, the revisions, a completly dry, and parts of the track freshly repaved, for a 7:29 time