True, but ignoring reliability problems goes with all cars, weather it be the 997TT or the LP560 they don't go into reliability, and as has been mentioned previously a fair number or Porsches have had reliability problems as well, but they don't seem to be talked about very much at least not on this forum because there are alot of Porsche owners here and posting in these threads.

As for performance times, i have seen a few videos/articles where magazines and testers have got the same or better 0-60 times as nissan claims, so i don't think that they are actually false, apart from 'the ring' times which is hard to prove that it was a stock car etc and even if someone did prove a time like that in the GTR most people wouldn't accept or believe it because they enjoy bashing the GTR so much

 

Its not just the reliability problem but the costs of the parts, the costs of repir and the underhanded way Nissan has tried to deny a claim by voiding warranties when using a Nissan provded feature. The transmission repair costs close to 1/3 of the whole car.............I mean come on what BS is that!!!!

Many of these great performing vehicles were the early ringers, more recent test has shown slower times. Also the advertised performance times used the LC and VCD off function, according to Nissan these features should not be used. Several magaines achieved less than spectacular results without LC and with VCD on. Without LC the GTR became a 4sec car.

 

Agree 100%, the early GT-R's were undeniably tuned aggressively (look at the Nurburgring debacle) and when current owners couldn't achieve the "claimed" 0-60 performance numbers driving the car normally, they launched the car even harder and this is when the sweeping of the transmission parts off the street occured

The reason why Porsche doesn't receive the same treatment as the GT-R in regards to the stroking is simple.........Porsche doesn't need to hype their cars to the same degree as Nissan because they are a solidified name in the performance and racing game. Nissan is not nor will ever be in the same league IMO.

 

This ringer nonsense has been comprehensively dismantled by real world results produced by owners in dealership purchased stock GT-R's.

The fastest quarter mile time ever produced by a magazine is an 11.5 by C&D. C&D themselves went on to claim that that car was a ringer, supposedly tweaked by Nissan....... until two owners matched that result with an 11.52 and numerous others produced 11.6s. Keep in mind that Nissan only claim the vehicle can achieve 11.7.

At least 4 owners have produced 11.7s without LC, or VDC off, in stock GT-Rs, repeatedly, given the right track prep, temperature and fuel loading.

I distinctly recall you vehemently denying the performance times produced by the magazines and screaming for everyone to wait until owners come back with real world results.

Will you now also conveniently reject the numbers being produced by owners because they don't suit your cause?

 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLEyEF6pjh0

NO independent test has achieved anywhere near the 7:29 Nissan publicized time. CH pointed out that the GT2 was capable of a 7:30 but the GTR was only capable of around mid 7:40's. Other highly respected drivers with doubts include Alain Prost and Steve Sutcliffe. So far all reviews have cast doubt to the validity of Nissan's 7:29 time.

At that stage magazines were achieving 3.2 and low 11 times. These can not be achieved with a stock car and definitely can not be achieved by a non LC enabled car. You even said so yourself in your post.

Another point that I want to clarify is how the Nissan GTR used by Nissan was able to reach a top speed of 180mph around the ring while the Driver Republic only achieved a 168s mph top speed.....this is a huge difference that can only mean a ringer with more power.

 

No independent test has been conducted that is worth mentioning. Driver's Republic recorded their lap time in inclement weather, in a RHD JDM car wearing Bridgestones. The only other "result" available was produced by a direct competitor and, not surprisingly, claims the GT-R is very slow. Sportauto will be conducting a GT-R Supertest in April this year, that will be worth waiting for Mo.

I don't believe the GT-R is faster than the GT2 mainly because I don't believe that GT2 could only manage a 7:32 in WR's hands, it is almost definitely a 7:25 car in his hands, given clear road. WR's 7:32 was achieved in traffic which would explain why HVS was just 1 second slower with his 7:33.

I've made my prediction of 7:40 for the GT-R's Supertest lap.

You've made this claim on multiple forums but somehow you can never back it up with proof. NO MAGAZINE HAS EVER PRODUCED A LOW 11 QUARTER IN A GT-R. The fastest on record is an 11.5 and that has been matched by owner vehicles.

Or it could mean that CH was entering the straight at some absurdly low speed due to the combination of poor weather and Bridgestones.

Like i said, wait for the Supertest.

 

You should really just put monaroCounty on "ignore".

His contributions are factually incorrect, ridiculously biased and offer nothing to the debate.

I can't be bothered to dissect every stupid claim, but for example - Autocar's Sutcliffe though the GT-R's 'Ring lap time was incorrect because they didn't time across the T13 section where there's a track entrance and exit ...

 

This is where you are wrong and still wont admit it. Stock GTRs without using LC are hitting 11s in the 1/4 and 3s 0-60 times. Some are actually getting better numbers than the magazines reported. So the ringer cars in this instant is not true. One owner got 11.6s in his car and then used another members car and achieved the same time. Someone already posted the link in here I think

..............Awaiting your answer to this

 

The ringer with LC achieved low 3 and low 11, a huge difference in just getting into the 11 and 3sec range. This low 3 and 11 range has never been replicated in a stock production car!!!

 

Just because my posts isnt to your liking? Still, I dont need your approval and certainly wont conform to your views just to please you and your circle of friends.

Mr. Sutcliffe has first hand experience on how Nissan lies with its Nurburgring time especially with the GTR (R33). He pointed out that Nissan didnt use a stock production car and finds it imposible that the GTR could be faster than the 7:32 Porsche GT2.

 

It wasn't just the ringer, kickhard posted the links to performance figures obtained by owners on Nagtroc. Just regular production cars and normal owners. They are actually hitting those times with no LC and VDC actually on. Go check them out, they are posted with timeslips as well.

 

Clearly you didnt bother viewing the whole video. CH pointed out many times that in most places he took the corner flat out with the GTR but not with the Porsche GT2 or that he had to short shift with the GT2 simply because of its speed and power. Handling wasnt the issue with the GTR, the damp sections wasnt the issue.................it was all about power or lack of it.

It wasnt the supertest but even HSV said that the GTR is a 7:40's car with most times being 7:50's. This is in line with Porsche, Driver Republic and many other independent tests.

 

I've been watching Sutcliffe's posts carefully and, sporadically, he has inserted 'agitating' posts that are baseless but somehow manage to rekindle the "Nissan lied" fires when they seem like they are dwindling. Paradoxically, this is despite his somewhat positive view of the GT-R during testing.

Nissan + Controversy + Internet = Web Page Hits.

This is a simple but effective formula that Autocar has made part of their mandate for maintaining their population of web readers.

The fact that Steve posted "information" pointing out that Nissan didn't time a segment of Nurburgring, almost one year after the first 7:38 video was released and after both the CTS-V and ZR1 used the exact same timing techique, should provide everybody with ample proof that this is Autocar's modus operandi.

 

Yes it has and without LC. Links where provided. You are still in denial or dont care, want to hear the truth. Its clear now what your agenda is and it is not the truth.

Describe what you are considering to be low 3 and low 11?

 

Monaro, if you are to retain any remaining shred of credibility you will need to produce proof of the magazine result which showed a low 11 quarter mile in a stock GT-R.

Simply saying it again and again will not make it true unless you are Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

If you can't produce that then no ringer claim exists.