LOL, thanks for posting this.

So the Sport Auto car hit 275 kph at Dottinger as it's top speed on the straight, yet Nissans car hit 289 kph (TWICE). That's still a 10 mph difference in straight speed. Now 2 GT-R's that are massively slower on that same straight than Nissan's car. You can only cry conditions for so long before you start to smell the coffee. And that was the original 7:29 GT-R that hit 180 mph, the one that hit 7:26 could have very well been even faster. And Suzuki lifted in the 7:29 car before the kink but still managed 180 mph.

Given the tires tested, and drivers, it makes perfect sense that HvS was very close to the maximum potential in the GT-R. There is not another 11-12 seconds in a car that's 10 mph slower on the straights, combine all of the long straights and 5 mph here, 8 mph there really start to add up.

If anything this further confirms that Nissan was using more power just like I've stated from the beginning.

The original GT-R is a mid 7:40's car, the US version a low 7:40's and the newest one mid-high 7:30's. But Nissan has claimed 7:38 - then 7:29 then 7:26. If you go back to his 7:50 time for the fabreicthe (sp) then add Dunlops -8 seconds, then the updates (2-3 seconds), the data is consistent. I bet that other car was 10 + mph slower on the back straight too. Making it 3 CARS.

The deviation in times is not consistent for you to pick any car and compare lap times. Horst has driven the GT-R several times and was at one time recruited for testing the vehicle during ring developement, so he's definitely familiar with the car. Getting in a Z06 or C6 was likely his first time ever in those cars and on some sucky tires.

 

Now facts and facts only, none of these speculations presented as facts. These dyno numbers were presented by a 6speedonline forum member and sponsor Eugene @ SPE, and according to him they (SPE) "have seen some impressive gains from this setup".

The GTR that raced against the CGT, ZR1 could potentially be running on much higher boosts and on race fuel. It could potentially be putting out as much rwhp as the ZR1 and CGT has fly wheel hp. Note that the ZR1 has 638fwhp while the graph below has the GTR rated at 629.4rwhp (at 1.2 BAR), also note the increase in power of the modified GTR over the base GTR (which in itself seems to be a very very healthy example - with some publications dynoing at around 410rwhp).

BASE VS HKS GT570 KIT 91OCT

BASE VS HKS GT570 KIT 100OCT STAGE 2 AP CUSTOM MAP

BASE VS HKS GT570 KIT 109OCT STAGE 2 AP CUSTOM MAP

 

The ZR1 has a close ratio and very nicely spaced set of cogs, especially when you consider the fact that the ZR1 has some crazy amounts of torque at its disposal that would make any manufacturer (bar Dodge) cry for mercy.


2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
Gear Type
Close Ratio 6-Speed Manual
Final Drive3.42:1
1st Gear Ratio2.29:1
2nd Gear Ratio1.61:1
3rd Gear Ratio1.21:1
4th Gear Ratio1:1
5th Gear Ratio0.81:1
6th Gear Ratio0.67:1





2005 Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06

Gear Type
Tremec 6 Speed Manual
Final Drive3.42:1
1st Gear Ratio2.66:1
2nd Gear Ratio1.78:1
3rd Gear Ratio1.3:1
4th Gear Ratio1:1
5th Gear Ratio0.74:1
6th Gear Ratio0.5:1




R35 Nissan GTR

Gear TypeGR6 dual clutch transmission
Final Drive3.700
1st Gear Ratio4.056:1
2nd Gear Ratio2.301:1
3rd Gear Ratio1.595:1
4th Gear Ratio1.248:1
5th Gear Ratio1.001:1
6th Gear Ratio0.796:1

 

There have been several tests that clearly show othger cars easily beating the GTR when it comes to straight line speed, the GTR has an extremly short gearing, a clearly lower power, and a heavier mass (the aero is still up in the air since no one has actually tested it aapart from Nissan, their figures are questionable as it is). So how is it that the GTR can keep up with the ZR1 around the Nurburgring's long straight (along with other more superior cars)? Why are the independently tested cars far slower along that same straight?

 

Of course its gearing is taller than the Vette's, and every other car in its class as well. My point is all other Vette's attain max velocity in 5th gear, the ZR1 is designed to and geared to pull all the way to redline in 6th gear. I am no engineer but maybe 605 lb ft and 3350 lbs at the kerb might help with its gearing?

 

Again you have someone with 7 posts questioning someone with over 1,000 posts on wether he knows what he is talking about. If I had no idea what I was talking about I would have been tarred and feathered by now! Where do you guys find these internet warriors to join the GTR's minions at?

 

^ On Porsche forums!


Seriously... He has a lot more relevant information about other cars that have been brought up (i.e. ZR-1) than I'm aware of...

I'm not familiar with cars that I'm not interested in purchasing.

 

10 mph on the straight doesn't require any more power Heavy Chevy and Monaro. He just carried 10 mph more speed thru the previous corner.

 

AMuS. 275 kph was its top speed at that point on the straight. How do you know it didn't hit 290 kph (or damn well near it) after the kink going into Tiergarten, which is where the 7:29 car hit its top speed? Both the ZR1 and GT2 hit their highest speeds on the downhill plunge into Tiergarten, not at the straight before the left-hand kink at Antoniusbuche. (Rohrl said he hit 310 kph with the GT2 going into Tiergarten.)
The first time Nissan's car hit 290 kmh was clearly due to wheelspin as a result of going airborne, just before Schwedenkreuz. Listen to the audio on the run: the revs rise rapidly. And check out the totally non-linear rate of change in speed on the graph.

At that point (around 1:09.x into the lap) it was going about 266 kph (165 mph). The AMuS GT-R, apparently with passenger, was only 6 kph slower.
Chris Harris went airborne at the same point in the GT-R as well.

 

Sure, it helps. But apparently not enough if it's losing speed where it should be gaining. After you multiply at-the-wheels torque for both cars (at 5200 rpm for the ZR1, which is where the revs were after the shift, and 5350 rpm for the GT-R at 171 mph) by their overall 6th gear ratios, the difference isn't as great as you think. Based on the edmunds.com comparo, which placed both cars on the same dyno, the GT-R may actually have more torque at the wheels.

 

So, no explanation for the 16-19s gap between GM and HvS's time with the C6 Corvette? Or how the ZR1 outruns the 900-hp Koenigsegg? I thought so.

 

The hell he did. Nissan's telemetry says he didn't. It says he stayed flat on the throttle. So does the video. Watch 7:07-7:10 on the timer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBZ5i15yVU8
The revs are unwavering. No lift.



See? Peak speed reached at Tiergarten AFTER the kink. Not on the straight part of Doettinger Hohe where Sport Auto, Auto Motor und Sport, and Drivers Republic took their readings.

Now, look at AMuS: Their Doettinger Hohe speed is taken some ways BEFORE the kink. Between this point and the downhill plunge into Tiergarten, the ZR1, GT2, and GT-R continue to accelerate overall.

 

The AMuS car is not far slower along that same straight. The difference, at the same point, is only a few kph. AMuS apparently tested with a passenger too.
Drivers Republic? Part of the lead-up corner (Galgenkopf) was damp. Antoniusbuche line was damp, so Chris Harris lifted and lost 8.2 mph; Suzuki was flat, so gained speed at that point.

Whatever happened to "not a single publication has come within 15 seconds of Nissan's time," or "a time under 7:40 is optimistic, 7:50 shows the true potential of the GT-R"?

Regarding aero, did you see the Hennessey GTR600 (700 hp, with racing octane and increased boost) video 0-300 kph video? It did 250-300 kph in ~9.4s. The ZR1 in the Motor Trend test did the same in 18.1s, the stock GT-R in 28.1. Which makes me wonder about that particular stock GT-R. Nissan has sent a GT-R for testing before that was slower in a straight line than BMW M3's, so...

 

Did you fail to notice several instances where HvS nearly lost it with the ZO6? Even then GM's time of 7:42 and HvS's time of 7:49 is allot lower than the GTR's time (again in the ZO6). I guess Nissan is one of the very few where HvS have had several goes and even an invite from the manufacturer to test its cars and assess it.

 

How do we know he did not nearly lose it with the GT-R? That's right. You don't know. How do you know he went 100% in the GT-R? You don't. There is strong indication that he did not go 100%, that he left a few seconds left on the table.
GM's time is closer to 7:41, if they used a flying start instead of a standing start. That makes the difference 8 seconds. Which is not "allot" lower than the difference between Nissan and HvS times.

But wait. Did you fail to notice the 2 cars I specifically mentioned in my post? Why are you ignoring these?
1) Hvs is 16-19 seconds slower in the C6 Corvette than GM.
2) 900-hp Koenigsegg beaten by a poorly driven ZR1 with a headwind

Or how about these?:
3) HvS is 16 seconds slower than Porsche's time in the Turbo.
4) HvS is 7 seconds slower in the Murcielago than Chris Harris (Autocar).
5) HvS is 8 seconds slower than Basseng in the Zonda F; and even Basseng's lap was not optimal: the Zonda was misfiring near the end of the lap, and Basseng was slower in 2 corners than HvS.

Do you care to know what the 7:29 GT-R's estimated speed was at the same point as those other cars on Doettinger Hohe? I can almost guarantee you it's not 290 kph.