You keep mentioning the GT2 being such a great performer in the wet due to its Cup+ tires and the GT-R being held back. I keep telling you, that's great to know, but not completely germane given the conditions at the time of the test. I thought pictures might help illustrate, given your difficulties with this subject.

Perhaps a sole rain cloud followed the GT-R around on its run, keeping it from reaching its full potential. As far as wasting time, that seems to be your forte. You have an unending stream of excuses for the GT-R in the DR test not performing up to par. Seriously, what part of ""It could be argued that the conditions suited the Nissan better, but still the Porsche was faster." do you not get?

 

Harris has also heaped praise on the GT-R, calling it a "mini-Veyron". That you would try to label him a Porsche loyalist further illustrates the fantasy world you GT-R fanboys live in. He's not as fast as Sukuzi or Steve Millen in the car, so the test is useless, right? Using that logic, no test of a GT2 or GT3 is representative unless Walter Rohrl is driving.

 

Hadn't occurred to you that a tire that performs well in the wet could also perform well in the damp? The point remains: all along the track video commentary and lap chart, there were numerous references to damp/oily/slippery track. Even if it was dry across most of the surface, that still doesn't change the fact that the GT-R did not have the conditions in which it would make the most use of its dry-weather grip.
"Conditions at the time of the test" = mostly dry, but also damp/oily/slippery in many, many places.

I never said a sole rain cloud followed only the GT-R. Quit jumping to erroneous conclusions. You have done that more than once.
Excuses? Explanations. You were the one making the ridiculous association of whether a driver like Harris might go faster with VDC-off, and the implication of what that means to his warranty. Ooops. His friend's car's warranty.
And the DR test seems to support the theory that the 7:29 GT-R wasn't a ringer. Their speeds on the front part of the straight were very similar. Harris can see where 15 seconds could be gained by Suzuki and the tires. Then we are within 3 seconds of the 7:38 set by Suzuki with the S1 car on Bridgestones. Nissan mentioned 2 damp sections of track, not the numerous references as in the DR test.

"It could be argued that the conditions suited the Nissan better" means just that: it's debateable whether the GT-R would automatically be faster in wet or damp conditions. Instinct tells us that an AWD car should have more grip. But there are multiple records of AWD losing out to RWD cars in wet conditions, found in tests by Sport Auto and Autocar.
On the other hand, when they say "it could be argued the conditions suited the Nissan better," and you consider their view that the GT-R's grip in bone-dry conditions is nothing short of miraculous, then it's reasonable to assume (yet again) that the conditions really were quite damp, and not dry enough for the GT-R to enjoy its dry-weather grip.

Out of curiosity: did a GT-R kill your family too?

 

No, the test is not useless, if what you want to compare is GT-R with VDC-R vs GT2 in the damp, with the GT2 getting in one extra practice lap over the GT-R. Isn't that massive 7 second difference what you anti GT-R fanboys have been salivating over? You seem to be under the impression that it supports your assertion that Suzuki's lap was "mythical." It doesn't. An article purporting to tell "The Truth" ends with plenty of conjecture.
You have got to be kidding me if you don't think he has a soft spot for Porsches. Those were his own words, not mine. You can't "unspin" that.

 

Again, you waste a lot of words to make a non-point. The GT2 was tested in those same conditions and was hindered more, per Harris's commentary.

There goes sarcasm, flying right over your head.

VDC is nothing more than a red herring. No reputable magazine is going to test the Nissan in a mode the manufacturer explicitly states is only for mud or snow. SportAuto tests with it ON. You have provided zilch, zip, nada in terms of proof that Harris was hampered by the VDC system. In fact, there's probably a good chance it may have helped him. Lastly, the GT2 was tested with its traction control system on as well. You don't hear me whining about lost time on its lap due to its electronic nannies interfering.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Harris is stating, again, that conditions favored the Nissan.

My family is fine. Your attempt at humor is not.

 

In the sense that no-one else has come within ten seconds of his 7:29 lap in a 2009 GT-R, it was mythical. Same applies for his 7:26 lap in a 2010 GT-R.

As an independent test, it provides a far more valuable data point than a manufacturer's P.R. stunt.

Don't really need to. You seem to think you're somehow poking holes in the test results by mentioning this, but there is no evidence he sandbagged with the GT-R.

 

VDC helped him...from being entangled in a raging fireball of what was left of his friend's GT-R, yes. Helped him set a faster lap time? That's the first I'm hearing of it. There are 3 sources saying a GT-R should be faster with the VDC off.
If no reputable magazine is going to test with VDC off, then we can safely assume no reputable magazine will find the absolute limit of the GT-R. Suzuki obviously thinks it's fastest with it off. So therein lies the missing 3 seconds. Mystery solved. No ringer. Well, that plus the negligible disparity in peak speeds between these two on the straight. If Suzuki was on race rubber, you'd think it would show up in the very slowest corner of the track, where mechanical grip is at a premium and Suzuki sure doesn't throw the car around like he does in the medium-fast ones. Yet Harris's minimum speed was marginally higher than Suzuki's.
I'm not aware that the GT2's traction system is exactly as intrusive as the GT-R's. Could you point me to test indicating this is the case? In any case, in damp conditions, the GT2's mass shouldn't be nearly the problem it is in the GT-R.

Ouch, zing! Maybe your family isn't so fine after all.

 

Has anyone else really tried, in the same conditions? No.
7:27, in a 2010 GT-R with V-Spec wheels, wasn't it?

So, if there are 10 independent tests, all done with damp/oily conditions in 7 degree C temps, and they all set 7:5x's, these 10 "far more valuable data points" automatically refute a manufacturer's claims. Gotcha.

 

Wrong. SportAuto did. Results will be published this Friday. And you'll have to forgive them for not having VSpec wheels on their GT-R as those are part of a $25K option package only available in Japan. But it's okay for Nissan to set their official lap with them because they're "OEM equipment".

It would be pretty unlikely that 10 independent tests would all be performed under less than ideal conditions. Again, you dive head first into the shallow end of the pool in an attempt to make a point. Although independent tests may not be perfect, they are by far the best way to demonstrate relative performance of real world samples of these cars. If Nissan's claimed time can only be replicated under the most extreme of conditions, by only one driver on the planet, and if cars that should be slower manage to beat it in real world, heat-to-head tests; then that time is fairly useless.
Correction - fanboys like you seem to get get all wobbly kneed and teary eyed talking about it, so I guess it serves some purpose.

 

Just checked. Still fine. And in another update, you're still too stupid, or too much of a ******bag to realize there was nothing funny or remotely "zinger" like about what you wrote.

 

This thread is on its way to being locked, and you guys are right....you would be stupid to buy a Zonda , Carrera GT, or Enzo instead of a GTR.

The GTR eats those cars for lunch at the ring, and comes back for seconds. It's a lightweight pure bred street legal race car.






















No not the Nissan GTR...LOL

 

Sport Auto did what? Drive the GT-R hundreds of laps around the 'Ring in completely perfect conditions with VDC off? You just said up there that they leave VDC on.
I don't consider the 7:27 "official" either. I'm going by the 7:29 time.

Just as it would be pretty unlikely that the handful of tests we have so far were done under the same conditions as Nissan's testing. We know for a fact that 2 of these tests were most certainly not under the same conditions (DR and Car), AMuS appears to have had a passenger in the car (and was timed over the full course), and Porsche's "independent" test is anything but.

Real world head to head tests...like what? Being as fast over winding mountains roads as a ZR1 (edmunds.com) or an LP560-4 (Autocar, Car)?
A "fairly useless" time doesn't mean cheating. I would also think that the average customer who takes his car on the 'Ring is more likely to approach the claimed time in a GT-R than in a GT2. Do you agree?
The 'Ring is seen as a benchmark because it is more like a real-world mountain road than other tracks. The GT-R deals with crests, bumps, and odd cambers as well here as it does on public roads, and it gives the driver confidence because it is so stable. Its 'Ring time is a reflection of that. Regardless of whether it's 1 second slower than a GT2 or 7 seconds, it doesn't really matter. That it is that close, and the results translate over into real-world mountain roads, is an indication that it's not all PR marketing. The GT-R is fast there, and fast on other tracks too, as well as being fast on real-world roads.

 

So all other cars are tested on bad conditions, yet only Nissan has been able to test their cars over and over and over again on the absolute best conditions? I find this hard to believe, especially when porsche basically lives on that track.......yet they couldnt get the Nissan close to the almighty time of 7:26.

The headwind must have been severe, especially when the ZR1 can kick Nissan from here to Japan in terms of straight line speed. I guess Carmagazine, Driver Republic, Sport Auto and Porsche also faced that dreaded headwind when they tested the GTR and didnt come close to Nissan's time.


I dont know about Lomas but werent both Suzuki and Millen hired by Nissan?

Still, CH recently raced around the ring, be also drove both cars on the same day, same conditions, and around the same disputed patch of track. Handling wasnt the issue, it was purely power that Nissan lacked and the fact that the GTR ate through its tires and brakes allot faster than the gt2.

 

They apparently couldn't get close to the 7:38 that HvS got either (and admittedly said that there were a few seconds left to be had).

It seems that the driver for Porsche was way off (perhaps should take lessons).

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Was it: Porsche lives at the track.... soooooooooo HvS shouldn't have beat their time?

Or: If Porsche can't do it - it can't be done?

I'm reaching here, but I don't understand what your point was. Please clarify.

 

The fact that amazes me is that an AWD car like the GTR has such a narrow performance envelope. There is no way in the world a GT2 should be compared to a GTR on a wet track. I would have thought hell would freeze over before a GT2 would be better in the wet than any car.

No one seems to admit the inevitable and true fact, the GTR is going to have trade offs to weigh what it does and peform the way it does. If your willing to put up with those tradeoffs your going to have a car that will put down amazing numbers. Deciding to buy one of the GTR's more involving competition does not make you a moron!