While it's true that DR did not replicate what Nissan did (who the hell is going to, for that matter?), their test provided a nice reality check.

Yes, let's all throw ourselves on our swords because the sanctimonious one hath bloviated. Hopefully when Nissan is done teaching Porsche basic Newtonian physics, "what vehicle parameters apply on a twisting racetrack", and how to drive the Nurburgring, they have time to let Porsche teach them how to design a transmission that doesn't break when using launch control, a transmission that doesn't limp the car after a few hot laps, and an engine that doesn't malfunction during a top speed run (see AMS's latest Nardo test).

 

If no one bothers to replicate what Nissan did, then we have no basis to invoke the "scientific method" and calling out Nissan for cheating. A nice reality check? What reality check did we need to know that a GT-R, in very different conditions and with only 1 flying timed lap by a driver who had never driven the car on that track prior to the test, would be that far off the pace from a driver with far more experience in the car and much better conditions?
Seems to me that the reality check is on Porsche drivers: Chris Harris, in those rather dismal conditions and with only 1 flying timed lap and the slower Bridgestones, was already within 2 seconds of Porsche's top 'Ring aces who, if we are to believe they really tried, tested the GT-R under the same conditions as Nissan (after thousands of laps, in perfect weather, with no mistakes in any corners).

 

Keep in mind that the N-rated Michelin Pilot Sport Cups have been reformulated again in the Porsche sizes. I just happened to stumble upon that looking at the Tire Rack site. The old Cup Sports were not much grippier than a PS2. The new ones may be closer to the real Pilot Cups (18 inchers). It may explain the 7.39 vs 7.27 results

 

First of all, If you really have a doctorate in research, measurement and statistics like you claim you do, then you would know that comparisons with Nissan's ring time with those of independent testers cannot be done for the simple reason that there are too many uncontrolled variables happening such as different driver, different day, different conditions etc etc etc to form any reasonable and accurate conclusion.
Second, I have a degree in Law so I do know what I'm talking about too. Like i said in my previous reply to your post - accusations without proof has no place in ANY argument or debate. Do you think that that is a fair comment? Please answer this question.
If you accuse someone of firing a gun - you need to provide the proof, such as the bullet, finger prints etc.
If you accuse someone of rape - you need to provide evidence in the form of DNA etc
If you accuse someone of lying - you need a recording.

My point is that, If you accuse Nissan of cheating - you need to supply the data, and so far, neither you or any one on earth have submitted any irrefutable or intelligible evidence that points to the contrary.

Ever heard of, "Innocent until proven guilty?"


No offense to you, but for a person with a doctorate on research, measurement and statistics - you are very close minded and ignorant.

 

i could fit someone on the passenger side, but not behind me, definitely some discomfort there, if a person would sit behind. Hey at least you have a option though.

 

If the arguments get more heated and directed at users, not cars, this thread will find itself closed..

 

amazing car. and i hear they will actually have paddles as a option?

 

No einstein, I'm just not going to jump on speculated times from unconfirmed sources. I completely believe it's possible, but before I address it, I'll wait until it's confirmed or at least some other tests to see how it compares to other vehicles.

You on the other hand are saying Porsche claimed 10 seconds over 7:38 so 7:27 is probable but then say it's impossible. Are you saving yourself room for an escape clause or what? You are clearly contradicting yourself as usual.

Link to quote of product chief saying TT beating GT2 is impossible........ Whether or not it's possible is not the question because it is, whether or not Porsche would put the effort into doing it or making an official claim about however is in question. That is where my doubt comes in.

 

Can't we all just get along? These are all great cars, and bragging rights about 'ring times are just that. Replication of other's findings make be a standard in scientific research, but it seems here that there are too many variables...As someone said before, these times are primarily used for marketing purposes.

PhD, PhD, MD, MBA, MS....All it does it make me more humble in forums like these.

 

The Driver's Republic comparison was done with conditions as close as you will get. In fact, I believe they were slightly better when the GTR ran. Chris Harris, who is a better driver than any of us said he could not see how a stock GTR would go much faster, in other words doubting what Nissan claimed. He had an excellent basis for accusation. Although you can't control for all variables, you have had several drivers under differing conditions unable to come anywhere close to Suzuki's time. Their times, even under those differing conditions, are similar to each other, but very different from Suzuki's. That's enough to cause one to have doubts. We are not accusing any one of murder here, so I don't think we need to apply the standards of law to realize that something stinks here. And the smell is coming form Nissan's camp.

 

And yet you believe Porsche set a 7:38 in the pre-facelifted Turbo even though 2 separate tests by HvS (with flying timed laps per the supertest norm) showed that time is not possible. A third test by Auto Motor und Sport not only refutes Porsche's time, but shows definitively that in same day testing on the 'Ring, the GT-R is faster at the hands of test drivers who definitely know how to drive Porsches.

Actually I'm not. Go see my first post in this thread. I believe the 7:27 time for the updated Turbo is possible. But in order to believe this 7:27 time, you can't possibly simultaneously believe Porsche's reasons as to why the GT-R is incapable of the time that it set...(explained in a moment)...

...not TT but we can make some inferences based on his doubt of the GT-R time:
"The Nissan is a good car. I don't want to make anything bad with my words. It's a very consistent car. But this car is about 20 kilos heavier than the Turbo . . ."

Aside from using a knackered and misaligned GT-R as we discussed in the other thread, his basis for doubting the GT-R's time rests on a mere difference of 20kg. As if a dual-clutch transmission, superior AWD system to the pre-updated Turbo, and a driver with near limitless resources and thousands of laps can't make up a difference of 20kg. Now, we have the updated Turbo, which weighs ~150kg more than the GT2 and has 20 fewer hp. How can anyone possibly believe that a GT2-matching or -beating time of 7:27 is possible, if they so readily subscribe to Porsche's contention that technology cannot possibly even the score when the difference (according to Porsche) was a mere 20kg? Using Porsche's own reasoning, you and others should be questioning Porsche's claims about the new Turbo being 10s faster than the old (7:38) with the same vehemence with which you denounced Nissan as cheaters.

 

Wrong, they are pretty far apart. DR even noted:
"This was never going to be an exact exercise. The track wasn't completely dry, the ambient temperature was 7C, and we didn't have the luxury of successive flying laps.
Arranging this exercise in November and expecting anything like useable track conditions is a bit like inviting R. Meaden around for tea and expecting that the biscuit jar avoids a heavy assault."

In the commentary to the article, Jethro Bovingdon wrote:
"I would say 90-percent of the track was dry – but still cold and clearly not running as fast as it might in the summer (without leaves compressed into the track etc)."

DR co-founder Steve Davies:
"But as you can see from the feature we were less concerned with finding the absolute fastest lap, but more in understanding how each car would have performed relative to the other around sections of the track that we know very well.
we never set out to achieve an ‘outright’ fastest possible time around the ‘ring, otherwise we would never have attempted this test in November."

Not only were conditions nowhere near the same, but the test methodology were not remotely the same. Suzuki has thousands of laps in the GT-R in the 'Ring, and the luxury of countless flying timed laps, and he set his fastest laps with stability controls disabled. Harris had never been in the GT-R on the 'Ring prior to this test, he had only a single flying timed lap with a warmup (2 prior laps were done when the track was soaking wet), and he drove with stability systems enabled.
That's not a scientific test at all, and any such test to determine whether Nissan's cars were ringers would never stand rigorous scrutiny.

And as for Harris being closer in the GT2, well what exactly was Harris doing only a couple of days before the test? That's right: racing around the 'Ring in a rear-engined Porsche.

 

So the only reason you're speculating the new Turbo can crack the 7:30 mark is to troll for a response you can use to prop up the GT-R and put down Porsche. Got it.

So you don't have a quote. You're just distorting something he said.

According to a "Nissan source".

Did you ever stop for a second and consider that the "20kg" difference might have been a typo where a "0" got dropped? Are you that biased that you honestly believe the 911's product chief doesn't know the weight difference between the GT-R and the Turbo? Seriously, you make up something he never said about the TT and the GT2, then you launch into a rant over what clearly is either a typo or mis-statement by him in regards to the weight difference. Just unbelievable.

 

The conditions were close for the GT2 and GTR being compared that day. And as was said before, if anything, Harris drove in a manner that handicapped the GT2 (shortshifting), and he said the conditons favored the GTR, which with all it's gadgetry is supposed to be easier to drive than the rear engined Porsche, especially with wet conditions. He did say he couldn't see how a stock GTR could be driven much faster. The other point made was that you have Car Magazine, a Porsche engineer familiar with the track, and Harris turning 7:50's under varying conditions, and then you have Suzuki's 7:26. We have a pattern being established that questions Nissan's time. More tests would help to establish a clearer picture, but true, unless you conduct a well controlled "study", you really won't ever be able to draw clear conclusions. I suppose that, if Nissan has established anything, it is that you really can't use the Nurburgring lap times to prove much of anything. It is also clear that the results of car mag tests are so highly variable that it is hard to draw conclusions from those tests. Unless some one conducts a well controlled "study", we can't say much either way, I suppose. Maybe someone could convince Bill Gates to purchase five GTR's and five 997TT's, off the showroom floor, and set up a well controlled comparison. Yeah, right.

 

Nope, you got it wrong. It's not about propping up a car or putting down another.

Apply what he said about GT-R vs Turbo to Turbo vs GT2 and see if it is consistent.

Sure. It was raised no less than 5 times in the reader comments to the article. Yet to this day, there is no correction.
But let's say it is a typo, and he meant to say 200kg. At 155kg heavier (and 20 less hp) how is the Turbo able to match or beat the GT2's time?