Not really. If the new turbo is faster than the GTR then all is good. Actually it is expected to be better since it costs more.

 

That statement is very subjective, we are comparing a luxury high end high performance brand vs a company who makes economical cars. No nissan will have the prestige of a Porsche Turbo. If you sit in both cars, you will know what am talking about...

what you get in the turbo is a better package overall and the brand heritage that comes with it. I have good reason to believe that the Nissan lied about their claims as I have on video i've beaten one with my car and I do not know what Nissan was smoking on when they made those claims. Here I'm not bashing the GTR, I just didn't like dirty tactics played by Nissan's marketing and am gonna leave it at that...

 

Fully agreed.Some people always thought the GT-R is their "god in heart"..If any day any chance they win a car "lotto game" with the first division of a brand new bugatti veyron...Well you know what they gonne say : "Emmmmmmmmmm...Do you guys have a NISSAN GT-R?I would like to exchange please!!!"

 

I do have a doctorate, with emphasis on research, measurement and statistics. From a major land grant university in the U.S. So I do know what I am talking about. Bottom line is, if you make a claim that no one else can replicate, you loose. That is the scientific method. Nissan fails the test. When someone gets hold of a GTR that is not supplied by Nissan, it is unable to run the ring anywhere close to Nissan's ringer. That is a good basis for making an accusation.

 

I will pay anyone on this board $1000.00 cash if they can duplicate any Nring number from any OEM with a new car off the lot. It can not be done, will never be done unless you are a Pro Driver with Nring experience.

Lets not confuse the issue, Nring numbers are published for marketing, nothing more, nothing less. Nissan, Porsche, Ferrari, etc do not make any claim that Billy Bob will be able to hop in his car and duplicate the times. If you could I think there would be a few corporate names on your car and we could watch you on TV on the weekends. Driving the Ring is tough, dangerous and pushing any car to its limits is beyond 99.9% of the ability of anyone here. Lets move on before anyone else embarrasses themselves.

 

Nissan is the one who makes the big deal of GTR vs 997TT performance. They had a 997TT out running with the GTR all during the development phase, so we know who they were gunning for. It is very suspicious when drivers like chris harris and HvS can get close to Porsche's claimed times but no one can get anywhere close to Suzuki's times in the GTR. It definitely suggests that they are cheating big time somewhere, most likely with horsepower. And, they have cheated before, so why should we expect them to be any different this time. I'm sure every manufacturer uses tricks now and then, but Nissan appears to be pushing the envelope.

 

+1 strongly agree with your statements.

While I agree with the statement that only good drivers can get close to manufacturer times, in the few instances that verification of the gtr's times (AMS, Sport Auto, drivers republic), not one of them could even get close to nissan's claims. I also agree that this kind of behavior is consistent with their last gtr (ringer cars).

 

Chris Harris, on a closed track, was 20 seconds slower than Rohrl in the GT2 and Rohrl passed 11 cars on his lap.

Harris Drove an S1 GT-R. His peak speed near the end of Doettinger Hoehe was 271 kph. Suzuki's peak speed near the end of Doettinger Hoehe in the 7:38 GT-R was only about 1 kph faster.

The scientific method says you replicate the same test procedures as Nissan.

Nissan:
thousands of laps
ideal conditions
in the spring
VDC-off

Harris (Drivers Republic):
1 flying timed lap
cold, partially damp and oily Nurburgring, the weekend after a VLN race and after an entire season's worth of grime and fluids dropped on the track
autumn leaves pressed onto the track
VDC-R

How do you figure that these were even remotely the same testing procedures?
And do you believe the updated Turbo is capable of a ~7:27 time?

 

Yet Suzuki was only over 1 second faster on the same stretch........ Overboost anyone?

Yet Chris Harris was 20 seconds slower in a GT-R that has AWD while the GT2 was on Sport Cups and being short shifted everywhere contrary to what was being done in the GT-R.

And you still compare different speeds from different places from two different tests. When the big picture makes a fool of your analysis.

Over and over again, the same nonsense.

 

Guibo has entered this thread, prepare for it to dive into ****.

 

Your overboost theory makes no sense. The difference in time could easily be attributed to a slower Galgenkopf speed (it was damp for DR's test) as well as Harris slowing down for the damp Antoniusbuche kink. If you are timing it all the way to the bridge, then that's part of your problem right there.

No, I'm comparing from the same point, before the kink at Antoniusbuche. After that point would be useless to compare since Harris lifted for the damp kink while Suzuki did not.

What does the time comparison with the GT2 have to do with anything other than to highlight that the GT-R indeed is only fractionally slower than the GT2? Fact of the matter is, no sane rational human being can claim test conditions were the same between DR's test and Nissan, and that is precisely the point.
Regarding your tangent, he even said the performance deficit in short-shifting was negligible. And those weren't regular Cups, those were Cup+'s which are not only optimized for wet conditions over regular cups, they're of a harder compound so would likely be more consistent in cold weather than normal Cups. After all, you were claiming durometer testing showed the GT-R's Bridgestones to be as soft as normal Cups, so the GT-R's tires would be more sensitive to cold, by your own theory.

So tell me, heavy. Doesn't it make sense that if Porsche set a 7:38 last year in the Turbo, and the updated one is 10s faster, doesn't that mean the updated Turbo is good for a ~7:28?

 

Why not talk about the attributes of the new 911 Turbo and whether anyone thinks it is any good and would be fun and rewarding to own and drive.

If all you are looking for is ring numbers then lets talk about kit cars which are far faster and cost a lot less.

If you want a Nissan then buy one. I own a Porsche and am very happy every time I get in it, look at it, wax it. Some times I drive it fast and some times I drive it half fast. I still enjoy it all the same.

 

Not going to bother pointing out any more errors in your piece-meal extra long responses with no substance to them. This post is running over with fallacy's of mis-comprehension and butchered information. But I'm going to leave you to your vices.

 

Back on topic: The new Turbo sounds awesome, but I don't think it will be as rewarding to drive as a manual.

Def. more potent in stock form, but less interesting to me for some reason (and no it's not the motor). I don't like paddle shifters for the track and that will never change. Interested to see what the Manual does in comparison in the future.

 

There are no errors. Anyone with even a vaguely scientific mind could clearly see that the conditions of the DR test were nothing like what Nissan had. And one of the most significant variables, the driver, is not removed from the equation.
How is thinking that the facelifted Turbo can achieve a 7:27 a vice? It's pretty obvious why you can't answer such a simple question, as to whether the Turbo is capable of such a time: you, Porsche, and just about every other doubter of Nissan's 'Ring times have painted yourselves into a corner. By the sheer Newtonian physics of the only 2 vehicle parameters that ever apply to a twisting racetrack (power and mass), any claim for the updated Turbo equalling or bettering a GT2/CGT is, by default, impossible. Porsche's 911 product chief said so himself.