Do you expect anyone to believe that the GT-R has a lower top speed than the CTS-V on that Nurburgring straight.

John Hienricy clocked 175mph at the same point, at the end of the straight, where Suzuki clocked 180mph.

Note that the CTS-V has the same p/w ratio as the GT-R and they used an Automatic CTS-V which has only 5 usable ratios. Beyond 140mph when aerodynamics take over as the determining factor, the CTS-V has to deal with 32% more drag area than the GT-R and only has 15% more power with which to push it.

Knowing this, the GT-R's 180mph top speed fits the mathematical model perfectly but thanks for your input anyway.

 

Heavy this load of crap about the ring times is exactly that. You are right about that. The people crying foul is NOT EVERYONE, its mostly the people that just hate the GTR for whatever reason and you are going to have people in every group that feels this way. You have been very vocal on just about every forum so I understand your point of view. But have you ever considered that there are other points of view right or wrong? It seems to me that the doubters are very Negative people. Always digging up the Negative aspects and never praising the positive ones.
I honestly could care less what the GTR runs at the ring and have said this many times. It is not going to provide me with the lone reason to like this car or not. It is not going to be the reason this car sucks or not. I have never heard of Chris Harris. Is he someone that tried to match the GTR time? Is there a link to his run you could provide? I also dont know of previous offenses of Nissan lying about other ring times, what were the others you know of?

I tend to look at the good things about this car and fix the things that are bad if i can. But so far my driving experience with the GTR has been great and believe it or not when I am driving it the ring time is the least of my worries

 

I don't have a " Ring " in my back yard so that is never a consideration when I buy a car. More of a wow factor or bragging right than anything.

Nissan has no credbility with people that remember the lies, the lies about the R33 ring time. The lies about the 3rd gen Q45 running 0-60 in 5.9 seconds...its not the first nor last time Nissan will lie about something.

That being said I am no expert, but I do have an interesting ability to read.

Nissan has proven to be very good at marketing, and publicity...they in fact created the whole hoopla over " Ring " times.

http://www.speedsportlife.com/2008/1...itter-porsche/

 

I bet you're one of those people who will still love this car if it went into limp mode on you.

 

When someone takes a production V to the ring and is 11 mph slower on the same straight and 25 second slower on the lap, I'll call bs then too.

Not to mention that the top speed on the straight means little because once you get to 160-170 your distance covered if growing far more rapidly than your speed increase. The thing you should be looking at is the acceleration split times along that straight and the time it took to cover that distance.

Your model is flawed because it doesn't take into account friction losses and drag from AWD which can more than make up for the aerodynamic resistance disadvantage of the V.

Everyone knows the GT-R falls completely flat after 100 and gets walked by lots of cars, probably the V too. It's very clear that GT-R had more power.


Try again.

 

Not to mention lots of pro drivers who can't get within 17 seconds of his time in production spec cars. Let's hear your reasoning for that.........

And Chris Harris's GT-R was 1.5 seconds to go with that 11 mph slower on the same straight with the same pedal to the metal as Suzuki.

Let's hear this explanation.........

 

Motortrend has already confirmed the GT-R's drivetrain loss figure and measured a maximum loss of 19% which actually makes the GT-R's drivetrain more efficient than the ZR1's, with it's 22% losses.

Go figure. The GT-R's drivetrain is actually more advanced than the ZR1's.

Even worse the CTS-V's transmission was a slushbox with 5 usable ratios.

So what are you talking about? Is there some unknown physical phenomenon that we are all not aware of?

Please let me know about it.

Till then the mathematical model remains perfect.

 

Where does 25 seconds come from in a car much easier to drive than its RWD competition? I am curious ?

 

Did anyone read the link I posted? And by the way I just went to my local track, I am now the fastest man in the world. I timed it myself

 

1) A series 2 car instead of a series 1 car

2) A dry warm track instead of a wet cold track

3) Dunlops instead of Bridgestones

4) The right driving style to suit the car's dynamics

5) Approximately 5000kms of Nurbugring development & testing seat time wouldn't hurt either.

You fail to mention that the GT2 was also 18 seconds behind it's manufacturer claim during that same D.R. test.

The Supertest is coming soon and HVS may just find you a few of those missing seconds.

 

Ah Ha, you give a fanboy enough time and he will expose himself. So you said the GT2 had an 18 second difference right? Any Porsche guys think that the GT2 is harder to drive at the limit than the GTR? And it only had an 18 second difference?

Nissan is the one that advertises it as super car performance for the average driver right? It's supposed to make an average driver look pro in all conditions. I am not the one that compared time traces between certain points. But I have seen the evidence and I am fairly certain Nissan like they did with the R33 and R34 lied about it being a production car.

 

Why the dramatics?

Look at the relative differences:

Porchse 911 977 GT2 -> 7:49 vs 7:31 , 18 seconds difference

Series 1 GT-R, Bridgestones -> 7:55 vs 7:38, 17 seconds difference

What's the big deal?

 

I like the GTR, I like alot of things about it...but as I have said before..its subject to the same laws of physics other cars are. I have also seen the evidence, and nothing that is said is going to change what I believe to be the truth. You can't call a record set and recorded by Nissan as absolute gospel truth.

 

WRONG!!!!

Both GT-R times were set on Dunlops. 7:38 and 7:29.

And the GT2 time is 7:32. You are in such a hurry scrambling for facts that you are missing stuff left and right. We already have two other drivers within 2 seconds of Walter's time, and many more that have tried and cant get within 17 of Suzuki.

And as germeezy mentioned a RWD car will be hurt more by wet conditions especially on MPSC than the GT-R would, Chris Harris admittedly short shifted and took it easy in several parts of the track with the GT2 while he was pushing much harder in the GT-R. His own words.

Try yet again.

 

I love how you say things without proper sources. Maybe, like Dorothy from the wizard of Oz, if you say it enough times it becomes true. LOL.

Unfortunately, Jason Kavanagh, the engineering editor at Edmunds really does beg to differ:

"There's been some confusion over the tires used on the GT-R during its 7:38 lap of the Nurburgring. Various sources have reported that cut slicks were used. This is incorrect, and stems from a language barrier at a press conference during the GT-R's debut at the Tokyo Motor Show.

Senior GT-R development engineering staff on hand at the 'ring trip I attended confirmed that production-specification (including the tread compound) Bridestone RE070 tires were used on the 7:38 lap."

Link Here


And more from Pistonheads, who corrected their previous cut slick fiasco:

"Nissan claims its testers have recorded a 7min 37sec lap of the Nurburgring but, apparently, certain sections of the lap were wet when the time was set. They also have data for a 7min 38sec lap on which the driver was blocked by a slower car for several corners. Both laps were recorded using original equipment Bridgestone RE070A tyres, in other words with the car containing no secret tweaks or tricks. In reality they reckon it’ll do a low seven-thirty – maybe a 31 or 32 – whereas a 911 Turbo wearing far more trick rubber with Walter the wheelman at the controls, could ‘only’ manage 7min 40sec. Truth is the GTR is a good 10sec quicker round the ‘Ring, maybe a little bit more."

Pistonheads link


Don't be put off. I'm sure the whole "Nissan turned up the boost" thing will turn out to be true. Just keep saying it again and again and again........