I am a fan of many performance cars as well, but your description of the handling characteristics means that this car understeers all the time, until it understeers so much that then the AWD sends more power to the front wheels, then causing snap oversteer.....which is exactly what Motortrend and other critics have sited. And to get oversteer, you have to violently throw it into a corner, of which then the front wheels start to help.
hmm....this sounds exactly how I want my 80-100K sports coupe to handle. What a joke. So the GTR teaches drivers that if your car understeers, then just keep your foot in it, steering wheel cranked until the AWD systems saves you by sending power to the front and causing oversteer.

This is really no different than how the current STi and Evo's handle, which means people with no driving skill can go relatively fast until they overstep about 8/10ths of the car, and that's when they always go flying off track because of awd, traction sensing systems trying to correct things, while dealing with the inputs of the driver. I see it all the time, not to mention it promotes bad driving techniques.

Understeer is safe and fast for most people. It's also extremely boring and a frustrating way to drive, especially if you have any skill. And if you do have skill, the last thing you want to have to do is put a car into extreme manuevers to try and get it to do what you want, which is what the GTR seems to require. Not to mention, the GTR is not a track car anyway, so I don't get why people talk about how fast it is on-track. In the real world, owners don't just do one lap on a track.....they do lots of laps, over the coarse of weekends, and months, usually in hot conditions. The tranny, brakes, tires, and engine in the GTR become a huge, expensive liability in these cases, so I don't care one single bit about how fast the GTR is on a single flying lap. Show me how it does on an entire track/DE season. I'll tell you how, ridiculously expensive maintenance and not as fast as you'd think. The GTR is nothing more than a really fast stoplight racer and freeway cruiser...that's it. So when GTR fanboi's or owners talk about how it's faster than a GT3 or other cars around a track, they have no clue what they are talking about since they will likely never even run a single track day, much less a whole season with a GTR. I can't even begin to imagine the brake fade and tire overheating that a car like the GTR promotes. There's a huge difference between a car manufactured for racing purposes and one made to just go fast. The GT3 wasn't made for "Best Motoring 5-lap Time Attacks".

So if you want to learn about weight transfer, throttle steering, brake steering, and car control in general....the GTR ain't the car to do that with. Get a GT3 or an M3....these are the gold standards for a reason. They do exactly what you ask of them.

 

So are we all in consensus that we should ignore Porsches ignorant claims about the GTR they took to the ring? Because I remember when not but a few months ago, Porsche in all its glory went back to the ring with a 911 TT and a factory spec GTR. Once they finished their "Testing" (I use this term lightly), Porsche with 100% conviction laid down their righteous and absolute verdict about the GTR. If I recall Porsche was whole heartedly convinced that the GTR could not achieve a lap of "7.38" (at the time) in standard spec. Lap times of 7.50 or under were next to impossible, but let’s not forget during this excursion Porsche also moved the 911TT's lap down a few secs to fend off the Jap car, in case it came back to the ring for another attempt.

So should we all just look the other way? Because I’m totally down to do just that.

Hammad

 

Oh, so old school (gt3, m3) is better? I see. And if you read more about the GTR, it's handling is not described as bad understeer and then snap oversteer. It has been described by several magazines and videos as having very good turn in, with SLIGHT understeer, then balances out to NEUTRAL when getting on the gas at the apex. And the GTR can't handle long races? Look at the GTR revenge battle, like I said. It is on Sugo, which is not a short track. The LP640 overheated it's exhaust right near the end of the race and lost because of it. Is the GTR the perfect track car? No. Personally, I wouldn't take any non race car out for extended lapping. I don't think many stock cars are designed to do that. Sugo is over 3 miles long, and they did 5 laps. Best Motoring has described that track as very hard on brakes and tires. GTR made it in first, without issues. How do we know that the Lambo/Porsche cars did not need brake or transmission attention after intense lapping like that? We dont. But I know what I saw. I don't know many that take stock cars to track sessions that beat on them all day long.

Oh, and I'm not fanboi, I just call things like I see them. For instance. Best motoring (a few years back) had endurance testing of performance cars. They took sever cars, including STI, EVO 8, NSX, and yes, a M3 CSL out for extended lapping on Tsukuba. Guess which car overheated? M3 CSL. The EVO lasted the entire extended race without overheating anything. Just because it is more expensive doesn't mean it is better. This applies to many consumer products.

 

Some points to consider. Porsche was in all likelihood using a 2009 GT-R, show with Bridgestone tires, as their reference point. I'd have to imagine SportAuto's latest 7:38 time is from a 2010 GTR with the better performing Dunlop tires and also with ECU and suspension tweaks Nissan made as a model year change. I think it's possible that Porsche probably were telling the truth and they could not coax much more than 7:50 out of their particular car. GTR's have been known to vary in output, significantly. This is confirmed by magazine tests on early cars.

 

+1 Or you can also look at the recent One Lap of America results, or the Targa Tasmania rally. The GTR has been doing very well in racing circles where the car is petitioned properly.

But since we are here on a P car forum, the GTR is horrible at everything it does. We get that.

Hammad

 

HvS has never gone quicker than 7:32 in any production car with Sport Auto, including the Zonda F (7:33) and CGT (7:32). Both of which are 7:2X cars in the right hands. Note that the Zonda F CS made 7:24 - 9 seconds faster - with Marc Basseng. I'm aware that the F CS is tweaked slightly above the F but it still shows that HvS can be beaten when it comes to the very fast stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_auto_(Germany)

 

I do. All GT3 owners that are lapping tracks with their cars will tell you that these car are very reliable even with intensive track uasge. That's what these cars are designed for and that's what they can deliver. I didn't touch the engine, exhaust and transmission of my GT3 and I ride it at least 30 track days a year.

 

[QUOTE][I do. All GT3 owners that are lapping tracks with their cars will tell you that these car are very reliable even with intensive track uasge. That's what these cars are designed for and that's what they can deliver. I didn't touch the engine, exhaust and transmission of my GT3 and I ride it at least 30 track days a year. /QUOTE]

That's great, personally, I wouldn't do that if I owned one, which I don't. I'm not trying to dismiss your Porsche. I'm looking forward to reading about and seeing the new 997 GT3. GT3 sounds amazing and is very quick. But what I do see is every Porsche owner slamming the GTR as much as possible. It's getting rather old. As pointed out by Sakred, it has done very well in the One lap of America. It can't be breaking down and overheating everything (as you have said) at each track event. Let's not overdo it.

I do believe that the DCT is a weak point in the car, but how bad? Guess we will will see...

 

You know what I see? Somebody that has absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

 

You'd like that wouldn't you but we have a slew of other 7:5x's to go along with that one. Which is exactly why I asked if Nissan supplied the car directly, it would be reminiscent of Top Gear where they went to Japan and got a car. Or Nissan supplied their best car because they knew if Horst wasn't close, which he still isn't it would be a dagger in their lying hearts. 7:38 is more respectable, but still 12 seconds off.

HVS drove an 09 and said that even 7:38 was optimistic when he drove that one. Now all of a sudden there is time left on the table. The people who are driving actual production cars and not Nissan supplied ones seem to think the cars aren't even 7:38 fast. And Porsche isn't the only one.

 

 

but, you say? 50 hp and ceramics (including the unsprung weight loss) over 13 miles can make quite a difference. And this is a 600 hp car that weighs 2700 lbs, I'm sure the degree of difficulty is not quite the same. When Pagani hired a driver he only got 7:27 in a CS.


Oh yeah, and I'm sure the 700+ k price tag didn't make him a little bit conservative.

 

Someone else recorded 7:24 in the F CS.

Either way, the GTR is 6s behind a car which has ran 7.28 in other hands (the CGT) and 10s ahead of a car that has made 7:42 in other hands (the MkI GT3). Seems feasible that a low 7:3X is possible and once you get to low 7:3X, the difference between that and 7:29 (Nissan claim with stock wheels) is just splitting hairs.

I guess if Sport Auto supertest a ZR1 we'll see. If they can't make 7:2X, then they're obviously a little off the pace. Currently the GTR is the fastest non-Porsche-based car they've tested aside from the ultra-expensive Zonda F and Koenigsegg CCR.

 

So let get this straight. Its OK for HVS to be off by 16 or so odd seconds on the 911 TT's time but it is NOT OK for him to be off of the GTR's time by 12 secs?

Source

997 TT claimed time by Porsche (7.38)

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html

Time ran by Sport Auto HVS durring a Super Test for 997 TT (7.54)

http://www.sportauto-online.de/super...g-1041269.html

I don't know about you man, but that seems like a bigger disparity between times then the one you guys are crying bloody murder over. I think its time to step away from the Kool-Aid

Hammad

 

Wow, nice comback with facts. Please explain to me why I have no clue? I presented facts from videos and magazine quotes. Guess that's why the GTR won car of the year from Performance Magazine, Motor Trend, and EVO. So you own a M3 and I said that one overheated on a endurance test in Best Motoring? Sorry about pointing that out.

I guess, in the end, I must be an idiot. I quoted times, facts from magazines, and easily verifyable results. Go do some searching on YouTube, look at GT3 vs GTR videos from ALL kind of sources and keep telling me I have no clue of what I'm talking about.

I've driven plenty of performance cars, and while I don't own expensive ones, I've grown up around cars and have tracked cars and built them too. I'm not some teenager that thinks throwing a big turbo on a car is cool.

Oh, and by the way, if I had the kind of money to afford one, my top 3 cars are the GTR, GT3 and M3. I'm not biased in my opinion.