A little schooling on weight. The 997.1 TT was around 3495 or so, the 997.2 TT is 3516 and 20 lbs isn't going to make a difference at all unless you're talking about consumables over the course of an enduro.

The weight gain locationally in the car is more important anyways. Weight lost in the engine bay, high up, away from COG behind the axles and gained low down close to COG. Significant difference in the weight's location.

Not only that, but PDK has less parasitic loss than a manual no torque interuption and obviously quicker shifts. All of which are far greater gains that what's being lost by 20 lbs.

So no, nothing is blunted, go read google some more articles instead of randomly blurting out misinformation.

 

I never said anything about the PDK not improving performance. Pay close enough attention and you'll be seeing I'm saying quite the opposite. And have been saying it for months.
I never said the 20 lbs erases completey the power advantage. But the power advantage will be blunted by the weight somewhat.
And as I asked you earlier: wouldn't some of the same benefits of weight and DCT which make the updated Turbo competitive with the GT2 on the 'Ring also apply to the GT-R as well?

 

Amen, brother, and I bet he ain't gonna turn no 7:26 in a stock GTR no matter what the conditions! The skies could open up and God could make it the best day on earth and a stock GTR won't turn a 7:26. Then again, maybe Suzuki is so good he could turn a 7:26 on Lance Armstrong's bicycle.

 

Guibo, do your lips never stop moving? You have been proven wrong by several in this thread. Yet you seem tireless.

How 'bout you just leave this thread and go chill with some buddies on a GT-R forum.

But I know you won't, so now I await the onslaught of useless banter including this post cut into several quote sections, with several terms bolded and the color manipulated.
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

And "laughy faces."

 

Not. Add a 20lb weight to the new Turbo with a manual transmission and it'll be faster than the outgoing Turbo manual across the board.

Of course they will, but parsing through the list to definitively say which one adds what % improvement is purely a guessing game. And if your statement about the "power gain being blunted" is any proof, you're certainly not in a position to be making those guesses.

In this instance, yes. Try to stay on topic.

Yeah, I get that. Don't know why you bothered to put my text in red as you're not pointing out some great contradiction. Even if they can't reproduce the exact times, they can see how close they can get to them. They can then make estimations, based on their expertise, on how realistic those mfr's times are. And though they be only guesses, I give them far more weight than yours or any other bench racer who wasn't there and has never even sniffed a racetrack, let alone the Nurburgring.

Again, you miss the point. Let's say there's a section of roadwork on the ring that causes a delay of 10 seconds, using best estimates. Let's say a magazine tests "car X" on the day of the roadwork. Even though they know, up front, they're not going to reproduce that manufacturer's time, they still run the car and get exactly 10 seconds off the manufacturer's pace. That is indeed a "reality check" and a very valuable test.

Actually, it was a great article and a great title. One you quoted profusely because that's all you do.

 

Where have I been proven wrong? Has it been proven that the Turbo can't lap in 7:27? The DR test was a joke, if you want to use that as "evidence" of Nissan cheating. It's not scientific by any means.
Debate the topic(s) at hand. Not the posters.

 

The difference in power/wt between the updated Turbo w/PDK and the old Turbo w/manual is fairly insignificant compared to the time savings of 10s on the 'Ring.

And where, in Chris Harris's calculations for the GT-R, did he consider the weather and track conditions? He only accounted for the time between the tires and Suzuki vs himself.

Too bad that example is in no way relevant to the DR test. The DR test mentioned the cold, damp, and oily conditions numerous times. Jethro Bovingdon mentioned leaves pressed into the track, which is consistent with a test done in November, and agreed the track would be faster at a different time of year. Yet where, in Harris's calculations of possible times savings for the GT-R, did he account for the weather and track conditions?

Also, feel free to address this:

 

Actually, it's the best independent ring test done to date. It features an exhaustive commentary, position correlated telemetry, video from inside both cars and a thorough breakdown of the results. That you don't see the value in this and instead defer to a manufacturer's test as a gold standard, when said manufacturer clearly has an agenda to push, exposes you as fanboy.

Furthermore, you don't hesitate to quote Driver's Republic when they publish something nice about the GT-R, as in their "Getting to know the GT-R" piece, yet you constantly ridicule this article. Guess what, the same people who produced the article you like also produced the one you call "a joke".

 

Hey guys, I don't think this is really all that complicated. If you look at a lot of the data on correlations between ring times and power to weight ratios, you find a VERY high degree of correlation. So much so, that it's pretty obvious that "outside the box times" are, in all likelihood, a product of tires or "hidden boost." There's no such thing as a magic car that can exceed physics.

Those models predict about a 7:50 to 7:55 time for the GTR, which is apparently about what porsche got, about what harris got and about what horst got (roughly). So we have 3 times within the range of minimal error predicted by highly accurate models;

Then we have Nissan's time which bears no resemblance to physics.

The same models apply to Porsche too by the way. The back to back comparison done by Harris shows essentially identical times (7:50 vs 7:54???) that's got to be within the margin of driver error, so that 10 repeated laps he's probably about the same time in either car.

Porsche's lower times are equally suspect, they just aren't as brash in the claimed violations of the laws of physics.

Does anyone seriously think a 3500 to 4000lb car with about 500 hp can run the same time as an aerodynamic 2700lb/600hp Zonda F? (which is within the math)

These ridiculous claims (on all sides) are just funny and getting more hyperbolic by the day.

 

'Fifth Gear' found a manual Cayman to be faster around a track than a PDK equipped model. Again, we don't know how each improvement contributes towards that 10s gain. Furthermore, all you really want to do is tout the technology your beloved GT-R shares.

From Steve at Driver's Republic:

"We didn't expect to match each maker's claims especially given the time of year, but what we hoped to learn (and did) was 'how' each car behaved over this 14 mile stretch of infamous tarmac and thereby be in a better position to assess the feasibility of each claimed time. "

What part of that don't you understand?

Feel free to present your argument in a manner that doesn't torture the reader and I'll consider it. Seriously, most of your "arguments" are half-baked assumptions loosely taped together with convoluted logic. I'm not under any obligation to indulge them.

 

And is this the same PDK control system (modeled after Tiptronic) that has been roundly criticized in test after test? Perhaps a Porsche engineer, used to the system, would be faster. The advantages of the PDK system is that up and downshifts can be initiated mid-turn so you don't have to "wait" for the car to be settled. Do we know if Fifth Gear capitalized on this advantage?

What I don't understand is:
1) why they referenced the 7:29 of the S1/S2 hybrid GT-R with detail refinements and not the ~7:36 that an S1 GT-R would likely have acheived w/o the 2 damp sections that Suzuki experienced in his 7:38 lap
2) why they hadn't realized that Rohrl had already set a 7:29 while lapping in traffic, and not on a closed course like Harris had the benefit of
3) when "assessing the feasibility of each claimed time," why didn't they consider the obviously worse weather and track conditions compared to Nissan's? They gave benefit of weather conditions to the GT2 time, even though Harris later learned through DR's Community forum that the Cup+ tires aren't as handicapped as he would have thought anyway.

The difference between Harris's time in the S1 GT-R and Suzuki's time in the S1 GT-R is 20 seconds. The difference between Harris's time in the GT2 (closed track) and Rohrl's time in the GT2 (while lapping traffic) is also 20 seconds. Where is this enormous gulf in disparity between manufacturer claims such that one is cheating, but the other isn't?

It doesn't torture the reader unless they are incapable of thinking logically. It seems pretty logical to me that Rohrl, with benefit of a closed track and no impediment to ideal lines and braking/acceleration zones, should be faster than 7:29 in the GT2. In which case the difference between Harris and Rohrl would be over 20 seconds. Is that not reasonable?

The "Getting to know the GT-R" piece wasn't written by a self-proclaimed Porsche fanboy. That piece also describes in some detail how the GT-R behaves at the true limit with stability controls off. Harris's piece didn't tell us anything about how the GT-R feels at its true limits, since he drove with stability controls enabled; it was a friend's car on loan, after all.

Harris also wrote:
"I don't really care about Nurburgring lap times, largely because I think they often say far more about the condition of the circuit and the size of the driver's sexual organs...than they do the vehicle in question."

 

And I'm saying it won't be blunted at all. I forgot to add that the wheels are significantly lighter than the lead anvils that came on the first model. Tha unsprung weight alone is worth far more.

So don't try to act like we are saying the same thing because we are not. There won't be any hinderance of performance for 20lbs. You would not see any recognizable difference.

Please link to said complaints of PDK, the only complaint I have seen is the shifters on the wheel and not paddles and the usual comfort issue of jerkiness at low speeds. The rest is regular nonsense by you.

 

Why would I need to link to complaints that you already know about? I doubt the 5th Gear tested Cayman PDK would have paddles and I could be wrong, but show me if that is the case. The Tiptronic-modeled wheelshifters have been slated in test after test.

 

http://www.insideline.com/porsche/91...and-video.html