So please explain the 16 second gap between Porsche's claim of 7:38 for the 911 turbo (with an engineer behind the wheel) and Saurma's 7:54 in a 911 Turbo shod with Sport Cups and PCCBs?

Please also explain why Saurma could only manage 7:49 in a Z06 using a flying start 20.6km lap when F1 reject Jan Magnussen managed a 7:43 using a standing start 20.8km lap?

That's a 10 second difference if you apply Saurma's timing method to Magnussen's lap. You yourself claim that Magnussen is a Nordschleife puppy. So how is this possible?

 

I wonder where this car came from......... Interested in seeing the top speeds on the back straight.

 

Speaking of F1 rejects, why is it you claim F1 reject Suzuki can pilot a car like no one else can? Even still the Z06 was only 7 seconds off with Saurma driving. Saurma is 11 seconds off the new time, and even 9 seconds off the outdated models time.

 

Please explain why the GTR cant seem to get close to Nissan's claimed time, even when driven by many many professional drivers.

 

I totally agree.

 

Funny, that's not what he said.

Motorpresse - the publisher of Sport Auto - also said HvS could have gone a few seconds faster.

Some may argue not. HvS is very experienced with Porsches, probably from driving for a German magazine. This is reflected by the fact that HvS is 7s faster with the GT2 than the Scuderia; a car which beats the GT2 and CGT by 1.8s and 1.6s respectively in Evo's tests. It even beats the Enzo on Fiorano. He's clearly more adapted to Porsche's slow in, fast out driving style.

 

I believe it comes from Nissan, a Japanese firm.

He's put in far more laps with it than anyone else. You know what they say, "practice makes perfect."

I can't understand why the debate is so heated. They are both magnificent cars don't you think?

 

Both great cars either way

 

NOBODY IS DENY THAT THE CARS ARE GREAT!!!

We are just ripping on the BS ring time that nissan claimed. As said before if they actually claimed a legit time (mid high 30's) these arguments would have been over within months of the GTR release.

Its the kids who are Fast and Furious Blind that think this car is THE GOD of cars because of bogus lap times, when it is just another competitor.

The Z06 got just as much if not more Dissing as the GTR is but all of the Z06's claims were close to proven or exceeded. Now the Z06 is WELL accepted even here.

If the GTR would just acknowledge that their car DID not actually do a 7.2x lap but actually is only capable of maybe a 30 something then this would all die rather quickly.

However the power of the ricer will continue this argument until the new versions come out and then some.

 

Hmmm... Maybe Nissan used ninja magic. Wasn't their test driver called Shinobi or something?

 

People who really appreciate and know what "Evo" really is....wouldn't ever buy a GTR. That's the difference.

The GTR isn't concerned with the thrill of driving, it's simply about accomplishing the task of speed. That's it.

The painful truth that all the GTR owners are now realizing is that the only justification for this car is now that it's "faster" than more expensive cars, which quickly loses it's luster. Just because some ex-F1 driver can supposedly peddle this thing around the Ring faster than a turbo or a GT3 is a pathetic reason to buy a car.

Not to mention, the Japanese have such a great track record with reporting accurate power numbers on their cars. Remember the mid-90's with their twin-turbo 300ZX's and those "gentleman" agreements to not make more than 280hp.

 

As many others also said...

Nissan created their own problem when they went from the first reported Ring time of ~7:38.xx down to ~ 7:2X .

Nobody questions Porsche's or Corvette's reported Ring times since others have closely matched their lap times. Now people have pointed fingers at Nissan... both regarding the Fabled ~7.2x lap times, as well as providing electronic gizmo's that increase performance but can NOT be used by their customers.

The fact is that Nissan encouraged the Auto Rags to use the GT-R's "Launch Control" to get remarkable zero to sixty and quarter mile times, and then denied warranty when their consumers did the same.

The GT-R is a remarkable achievement being a 2 door/four passenger semi-luxury coupe... when compared to BMW's M3 & M5, as well as the top end Mercedes coupes.

The GT-R is not what Nissan's trying to pretend it to be, a competitor to a two seat High Performance Sportscar.

 

Never said better.

 

Love it when you guys are so dismissive of the car. Go watch some Best Motoring. Cue up on you tube the GTR revenge battle against the LP640, Porsche 911 Turbo, Gallardo Superlegera. None were close to it's lap times around Sugo.

These guys are professionals, and before you hit me up with the excuse that they are Japanese, and want to see it win, it lost on Tsukuba against the Gallardo in an earlier battle. They are not biased.

So, with the lap times the GTR was posting on Sugo against these cars, you think that there is no way it could do a 7:26.7? I'm amazed the experts here all know this.

Even the magazine Performanc Car said that the GTR is easy to get fast lap times out of it at 8/10ths. Push it beyond that and it gets more difficult. "The Atessa system only puts power to the front wheels when it thinks you need it. To make the computer think you need it, you must deliberately throw the car with commitment and a little violence over the edges of it's envelope. Only as the back wheels light up, or the front pushes desperately wide, will the car start to work it's magic."

Point being, do you think these "professional magazine test drivers" really push it as hard as Performance car suggests, or do you think they are driving more like 8/10ths? I think Suzuki knows far better how to drive this car like they suggest, so to say 7:26.7 is impossible is shortsighted.

To also say that there is no thirill of driving the car? Top Gear said that they thought the car would feel like a game system. They said it felt wonderfull, very mechanical, not some video game type system feeling like everyone here (that supposedly has driven it) is claiming that it feels like.

Performance car also said "I realized very early that I have used too many superlatives in my life: I should have saved them all for the GTR."

These claims of cheating and a "video game" car sounds like sour grapes from super car owners that can't admit that a $80,000 car is faster than their much more expensive car.

Least you think that I am GTR only fan, I love the 911 GT3, and am a fan of many other performance cars.

 

Maybe, but as a road car it's a good compromise for a high performance sports car and leaves enough change for a used Radical SR8 to use on track days and that's a road-legal 6:55 car that will murder any Porsche, GM, Chrysler or Nissan.