That must have been the test where Evo also used a ringer.

 

You can't accuse Joe Blow of cheating since it was all Nissan's fault, they gave Usain Bolt a cold to make sure their guy Joe Blow could win.......bastards these Nissan people are i tell you.

 

This was a personal import, not a factory-supplied press car. It also was fresh off the boat with less than 400km on it. Evo continues:
"The Nissan GT-R posts a crushing lap of 1:21.7. And all seemingly without breaking sweat.
To save you the job of checking our lap-time table in The Knowledge, the GT-R slots in just beneath the Ferrari Enzo…
Nissan has built a winner, a new performance icon."

Evo later re-tested another personal import GT-R, and found it to be only 0.3s slower than the CGT tested the same day. According to monaroCountry, Nissan sent all these ringers to dealers, knowing that they would just happen to end up in the hands of the right magazine testers.

 

Wow.....just Wow!!!!!!!!

It's mind boggling what this car is doing on the track, remember it was not long ago when it was written off as a overweight and a underpowered car that was dead on arrival (yes i said that too.......before you dig up some posts written by me on other forums)
I guess my awesome bench & mag racing experience failed me, a freaking 3900lb 480hp car just turned the world of performance cars upside down

 

It clearly states not such thing, I'm starting to think English wasn't your first language.

They left with the record because 7:27 was the record, but the SUBSEQUENT LAP was on pace to be 4 or whatever seconds faster and they abandoned it. Do you know what abandoned means?

I am not talking about the 7:24 lap, never have been, other than mentioning there were two videos.

The passage you are so in love with clearly states they ran a 7:27, and then the VERY NEXT LAP, they abandoned it because of fuel issues, says nothing about fuel issue on the 7:27 lap.

You are trying to talk in circles and make this complicated when it's really not.


I'm convinced you can read but can't comprehend, because that says clearly as day, they ran 7:27 and then THE NEXT LAP HAD FUEL ISSUES.

NOT THE 7:27 lap!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Re: transmissions
Porsche says the 997 w/PDK is 8 seconds faster around the 'Ring than the normal manual. Same exact horsepower. The PDK-equipped car weighs about 30kg's more. So: slightly worse hp/wt, but 8 seconds shaved. Yet Porsche claims cheating on the basis that the GT-R has worse power/wt than the Turbo...

"The Nissan is a good car. I don't want to make anything bad with my words...But this car is about 20 kilos heavier than the Turbo . . ."
--August Achleitner, Porsche 911 product chief

Aside from the absurdity of making a claim of cheating based on 20 kilos, the GT-R weighs 197 kilos more than the Turbo. And has beaten the Turbo on the 'Ring by 16 seconds in tests by AMuS and Sport Auto. It's safe to say that Porsche 'Ring specialists really do need training in the GT-R. Behind Nissan's tongue-in-cheek dig lies a grain of truth. A grain the size of a watermelon.

 

OK, I see your point. My bad. However, my point still stands that the 7:27 car had fueling issues, and it did again when it set the 7:24 time; they estimate the car is worth a 7:20, and the Maserati (with a worse power/wt ratio) hit a higher top speed than the Zonda. Is that what you would have expected given their power/wt? In both tests of the Zonda F Club Sport, they had fueling issues. Ie, no optimum lap time was set. Not optimum conditions. In both the ZR1 test and the ACR test, both cars had strong headwinds down the straight. Not optimum conditions. The Enzo had failed dampers. Not optimum conditions.

Nissan had optimum conditions. You can't cry cheating just because others are hampered by conditions and mechanical issues. What about the ~1 kph discrepancy between the 7:29 GT-R and the Sport Auto GT-R? Are you seriously crying "cheating" on the basis of 1 kph?

 

The car was running low on fuel on the lap following the 7:27. They were destined for a 7:20 but never made it.

The Maserati has extraordinary aerodynamics, better even than an Enzo. The Zonda is a draggy ****. Evo took a Zonda S and several other cars included a Ruf Turbo R to an autobahn. The Zonda S never got past 197mph, the Turbo R made 205mph. The Zonda S's acceleration tailed right off after 180mph, the original top speed quotes were for a car with no wing.

I can agree that no optimum lap was set with any of these cars but it was down to limited time not mechanical issues. The faster the car, the harder it is to set a perfect lap. All these cars, Zonda, CCX, Enzo etc. hit ridiculous speeds that turn flat out sections into more complex sections that require braking and easing off the throttle. The braking and easing off makes the perfect technique much harder to arrive at.

Agreed. Nissan's time was legit. Only a few tin foil fashion gurus deny this.

 

Opinions from finalgear forum: "If you watch the in car video from the GT-R Nurburgring lap with the factory driver (the one posted here last year), it appears to take a radically different style of driving to get the very most out of the car. I'd not seen anything like it before; and honestly, I don't question that the car will go just as quickly as Nissan claim - with their driver. Others who use their regular driving styles will probably not do as well.

But then, that's the same deal with rear-engined Porsches, isn't it? It seems that "normal" styles won't get the best out of them, either.

Watch his steering inputs as he attacks the corners. Even on simple corners: Little input, back, BIG input, back, little input, repeat if needed. That's not normal corrections; that's not a normal style at all.

Bottom line: I don't doubt either Nissan's claims or the SuperTest times, but I think all the people who've complained about the claims failed to take into account the special driving style that this car apparently needs."

http://forums.finalgear.com/magazine...aptimes-36748/

HvS does what, 4 runs before doing the Supertest lap? Still an impressive time.

 

Most of the earlier reviews had the NIssan achieving great times, then it started getting lower. Top Gear and several others have said that Nissan's differ, some others like Car and Driver have admitted that the car Nissan loaned them performed better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q83ZWfuikwk


Also the 1.7 mile Belford Autodrome West Circuit is just too tight and small for many of these power and aero machines. The Nurburgring is a totally different track, most of it's top runners were the high hp machines who were able to use its aero and power advantage to its max.



In some cases and some places other far more mundane cars can challenge the GTR. What we have been arguing on is whether or not the GTR performs around the Nurburgring as advertised, and so far it's real life (stock) performance around it hasnt come close to Nissan's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL8uPemi3k

 

7:26 versus 7:38 are very far apart. Not including the Turbo, Sport Auto has matched all other Porsche cars around the Nurburgring.

Again we are really talking about the Nurburgring here and Heavychevy and I believed that the GTR used was a ringer. We both wanted to see the top speed for the factory Nissan v independent tests, this is a great indicator of how much power a car has. Our assumptions have now been proven correct, the Nissan ringer clearly had far more power and was able to do a 290km/h instead of a mid to low 270's km/h.

 

No

HvS said that the GTR had a few more seconds left in it (7:34?). So why are you comparing Nissan's absolute fastest time to the 7:38, which admittitly could be improved upon? You dont really think every time Nissan ran a lap on the ring they got 7:26? Hell, at first the best they could do was 7:29. So obviously 7:26 isnt something they can just do whenever they want. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of the Nissan crew celebratiing after the lap.


Look how happy they are. Stop acting like 7:26 is a given everytime on the ring for the GTR.

You never thought the GTR could even do 7:40, so your logic has thus lost all crediability. You've been wrong too many times.

 

We already discussed that video. That C&D editor said there are numerous reasons why the times differ:
Traction (location)
Break-in mileage
Weather
Go ahead and refute the test where the GT-R was as slow as E46 M3's from a roll, yet went on to beat the Z06 (and outcornering the ACR in a few places, even with an SRT engineer on hand to optimize that car for that track).


Do you realize how absolutely arbitrary that is? That's like saying most of the Nurburgring's sub 8-minute runners have been 2-seat or mid-engined exotics. Therefore, the Cadillac CTS-'V's time is fake. GM cheated.



Wow, giant GT-R vs much smaller Focus RS on tiny British B-roads. You can always find very tight and twisty roads that can challenge any supercar. Doesn't mean it will translate over onto the 'Ring. Or...are you saying the GT-R will get blitzed by the Focus RS on the Nurburgring?
Evo did a similar article with the STi and Lambo SL, again on British B-roads. Result: the SL had its mirrors filled with the STi.
Relevance of your video: 0.

Autocar showed that even a speed-limited GT-R runs an LP560 close on the Isle of Man. They estimated that w/o limiter, it would have crushed the Lambo by whole seconds.

Car Magazine:
"Believe the hype, the GT-R is everything it's cracked up to be. Damn it, the thing is a getting-on-for-two-tonnes coupe that's quicker round a circuit than the semi-slick-shod, caged up GT2. And driving in convoy through north Wales, it was all over the Lamborghini like a car cover.
The Gumpert and the GT-R share a feeling of being constrained by this circuit [Anglesey]; both require the Nurburgring or even Le Mans before you can really stretch them."

edmunds.com, ZR1 vs GT-R:
" I've driven both these cars. Together. Same road, same time. And there's not a significant enough difference in the way they drive on the street to sway me one way or the other.
...the real world, with its bumps, camber and ruts is a great equalizer. And the GT-R, which is far less compliant, powers through the real world with hardly a nod to its irregularities. Plus, it will always be easier to drive. This is the long way to say that it's just as quick down most roads."

Isn't the NRing more like most mountain roads than other tracks? It won't lose much to the higher-hp cars on fast tracks; look at the R&T multiple track shootouts again. The faster the track got, the further up the standings the GT-R.

Thanks for posting a lap chart of Bedford. That tells us nothing about how the GT-R will fare at the Nurburgring. Evo did say that it's easy to understand how fast the GT-R could be at the 'Ring. What do you think they meant by that?

You have provided nothing that proves cheating.

 

290 was @ Tiergarten. The 7:29 GT-R was around 277 km/h on the straight section. Sport Auto got 276. You are taking your speed readings at two different places.

 

^^^

Even more fail from Monaro.

Dude, just give it up already.