Wrong, the 7:29 was for the US spec GT-R, the Euro spec GT-R has more hp, improved suspension, upgraded tires and Nissan is claiming 7:26.7 which means it should therefore have been faster than both the CGT and GT2 which is a failure in and of itself.

I guess we could assume Suzuki, since he's so great could run 7:19 in the CGT and 7:23 or so in the GT2. The Z06's superlap was the same time as the fabreichte, I don't think SA took it seriously, there is clear misshifts on the video of the lap which cost it a few seconds.

And finally, when we get down to who supplied the car and the straight speeds, it will be very telling and Nissan has even more credibility to lose if someone can't match their times.

 

So no response to the above statement Heavy?

Yes we must dissect the car because Sport Auto, which was touted to be the fairest assessment of ring times, may have been compromised by the Nissan brainwashing effort.

Hammad

 

7:38 was not an official Porsche claim, or can you not read? I don't know if Porsche has ever submitted an official time for the 997 TT.

Add to that the fact that the TT has been very similar in performance to the GT-R, Z06 and GT3 on PS2's it makes no sense that it's several seconds back on MPSC especially when it was within a few tenths of them on the hockenheim ring. And if the MPSC are any indication it would suggest the 997 TT is slower than the 996 TT since Sport Auto ran 7:56 in a 996 TT on PS2's. You really believe that, then fine, but the fact that Sport Autos didn't even finish the video lap of the ring, suggest they didn't put much effort into it.


You are acting like this is a victory being that the GT-R is still 12 seconds back anyways. I think Porsches claims have proven themselves in general with the TT's time bein an anomaly. In this case, HVS time is still much slower and STILL the anomaly because it's the closest. With a Nissan supplied car no less.


That answer your question?

 

Well, I for one have seen several 911TT, 911GT3, 911GT2 track comparisons. GTR has never lost one that I've read regarding any of the 911's it has been compared against. That's from Motor Trend, Road and Track, Automobile, CAR, EVO, Performance car, ect. Is that proof enough, or do facts not count in this forum?

 

Not really. For the same reason that Suzuki is fast in the GTR, HvS is fast in Porsches. He has more experience with them, having driven for a German magazine for so long. I think the time delta between the GT2 and Scuderia proves this. On most tracks the Scuderia is as fast or, usually, faster than the GT2. It's even faster than an Enzo on Fiorano.
I think you're missing the point. It takes time to become fully adapted to a car. Suzuki has more experience behind the wheel of the GTR
So? It's well off the pace. It's back in 997.1 GT3 and M3 CSL territory.

I'm sure any suspicions would have been leaked by now. We know how easy it is to tweak a 10s quarter out of the GTR. Any foul play would be instantly reported through the many rumour channels.
Out of interest. How many seconds faster is the GT2 than the Turbo on the Nurburgring GP circuit?

 

Hahahah dont make me laugh with these Best Motoring garbage .

I agree, why cant the GTR beat the GT2 or even get close to it in all its ring tests? I thought the GTR was supposed to be running with supercars like the Enzo and Zonda, not with GT3's and Turbo's. Nissan fabricated its 7:26 time pure and simple.

 

Please, Mr. Knowledge, explain to me why Best Motoring is a joke? Bias? I'm sure you'll say that. The GTR was beaten on Tskuba circuit by the Gallardo on it's debut. The R34 was beaten in it's debut there too by the RX7 at the time. No bias there. Why then? All you guys do is laugh at the information I present with no facts behind it. Come on, tell me why?
Nissan fabricated it's time? Prove it. They have provided more proof for their times (because they knew people like you would never believe them) than ANY other manufacturer that I have heard of.
You just cannot accept the fact that it did it.

 

Wasnt the rear engined Porsche supposed to be harder to control than the GTR? Wasnt HvS also one of the first Nissan went to to the car when it was first released? Out of anyone HvS would be one of the most experienced independent GTR drivers he is also the most knowlegable around the track.

HvS had two goes with the GTR, which is more than most other cars.


So you actually think that the GTR is in the Enzo, Zonda and ACR league? The time set by HvS is IMO the fastest possible time, right in line with the turbo, ZO6 and GT3.



Where have you been? stop hiding under a rock and covering your ears. Many journalists and professional race car drivers have publicly voiced their suspicion. All believe that the GTR used by Nissan wasnt stock, Porsche believes in non standard tires, Chris Harris believes in a ringer engine.

 

Yep, Japanese are known to be cheats. No honor in their society whatsoever.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell my why Best Motoring is biased...

 

Open your eyes, try using Best Motoring as your definitive source and in most instances you will be laughed out of the room. Best Motoring is a good show but they are not very well respected by other publications, manufacturers and the general public.


The fact that no one has been able to achieve close to Nissan's time is proof enough, the fact that the GTR was able to keep up with the ZR1 but lost by 11mph to the GT2 on the Nurburgring's long straight is another indication, the fact that other very good and respected drivers (like Alain Prost) believe that the GTR was a ringer after testing them is another indication.

The time that Nissan set was proof that they did indeed set the time, however a Video isnt enough to determine whether or not the car used was stock. This is why people like myself and heavy are soo interested on the GTR's top speed on the long straight. Driver Republic's car was some 11mph slower on the long straight which would indicate that the stock car used had far less power than the one Nissan used.

Nissan does have a history of cheating around the Nurburgring and with the GTR. Nissan hired Dirk Schoymans to set the fastest time for the R33 which netted him a 7:59 lap, a few months later Autocar also hired Dirk Schoymans to again drive a stock showroom GTR however this time Dirk was 30 seconds slower also in perfect weather.

 

I'm still asking why. I've collected over 70 Best motoring videos. Never heard anything negative about them or bias until you. Do you see them deliberatly making certain cars lose?
Many of the drivers, despite knowing the R35 is faster, said that they love the M3 and the Porsches. I don't see the bias.
Also, please tell me why the GTR has won more "Car of the Year" decisions by major magazines than any other single car that I've seen in my 39 years?

As far as whether Nissan cheated, didn't Sport Auto just get 7:38? Did Nissan boost the performance on this car too?

 

Nissan does have a history of cheating and no the Japanese are not known as cheats although many Japanese manufacturers were busted over promising on engine power and under delivering (in America).

 

So Dirk got about a 7:30 with the R33 GTR? Really? I have a Mazdaspeed 3 as a daily driver. They took a stock one out and got an 8:39 with it. So my Mazda got 9 seconds slower than an R33? Wow, my car is quick.

I'm sure by now you probably think I dislike Porsche. Nothing could be further than the truth. I just visited the local bookstore and purchased 2 magazines that feature the new GT3.

 

You obviously have been watching too many Best Motoring videos and not exposed to other automotive enthusiasts. Even Top Gear has higher credibility than Best Motoring, they are basically at the bottom of the rung.

Having a faster car and having an easier car to handle for the average joe are totally different things. The GTR is an easier car to drive but not a faster car as compared with the other 7:20's car.

 

NOOOOOO Dirk set a 7:59 when he was a Nissan test driver using a Nissan prepped car, he was 8:30's when Auto car hired him to test a stock showroom R33.