I hope you listened to that video carefully.

"One word describes why this Focus is so great. And that word is CONFIDENCE. On a road like this, confidence is everything. You could have 1000 hp, but if you weren't comfortable with the car that was deploying it, you'd be very, very slow on this road."

Doesn't that sound familiar? I've been saying the same thing about the GT-R on the 'Ring. The GT-R can be as fast as a car like the CGT on the 'Ring because it gives the driver more confidence, whereas the CGT is a balancing act, on the razor's edge, with very little margin for error. BUT, that does not mean the CGT can't be driven faster than 7:28 with the right conditions, the right driver, and plenty of practice.

Also, the GT-R's traction control was left on in that video, so it was always cutting in on the engine power on tight, bumpy turns. Not so relevant to Nissan's 'Ring.
And it's not very scientific, now is it? Drivers of possibly different experience level (and they don't swap out), doesn't look like they're doing 10/10ths, no timing to determine which is really the fastest over the road.

Rebuttal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo3PaTPFiiI

 

You protest, but guys would be lost without us.

Reading is fundamental. No-one claims both cars were driven to their full potential. Harris made specific comments about which one he felt he got more out of. He is in a better position to make that call than you, or I, or anyone else who wasn't there and didn't participate. His opinion is not conjecture. He has the necessary information to form a conclusion as he did the driving and knows how hard he pushed both cars. Tell you what, if you really want to know more about how he thinks the two cars stack up - e-mail Chris at Driver's Republic and ask him to elaborate. I've already exchanged an e-mail with Jethro about the test and he was quite friendly and willing to offer what he knew about the test.

 

Billy Mays here for MonaroWin, are you tired of loosing at everything in life?

MonaroWin is the solution, with MonaroWin you will never ever loose at anything

Yes you too can win at everything in life for only $19.99

That's not all, if you call now and we will double the order, so you will get double the win for one low price.....so call now 1-800-MonaroWin

 

CH
GT-R 7:56
GT2 7:49 (-7s)

HvS
GT-R 7:38
GT2 7:33 (-5s)

Tough to say that the GT2 would be demonstrably faster outside of conditions that "arguably" favored the Nissan. Especially when we see the improvements in the GT-R that HvS made (yes relative to the GT2 in both tests as well, and not just what CH achieved). So yes, it's still open to conjecture.

 

Nopes. HVS drove a 2010 GT-R with the Dunlops (sticky tire optimized for dry conditions) and it was on a different day than he drove the GT2. Harris drove a 2009 GTR with the Bridgestones and his comment was about which he felt he got more out of that day, under the conditions at the time.

 

7:27.55 was a 2009 with SpecV wheels. 7:26.7 was a 2010 GTR.

Csere is talking about 1 GT-R. Were they all tuned up by Nissan? How do you explain the GT-R that was slower from a roll than E46 M3's (343 hp vs 480!) beating the Z06 and outcornering even the ACR in some sections?



The Focus RS needs to concentrate on beating the Renault Megane R26.R first and then breaking 8 minutes for the first time in production FWD car history.

 

I actually agree and don't understand why people get riled up in regards Chris's conclusion about being hampered somewhat more in the GT2. I do think it is a good benchmark to show the relative difference between a 2009 GTR with Bridgestones and a 2009 GT2.

 

"On a different day." So now conditions all of a sudden matter, when before they don't (in explaining partly the 7:56 Harris got vs Suzuki's 7:38 with Bridgestones).
"Under the conditions at the time." I thought you said the conditions were dry.
In any event, 276 kph on Doettinger Hoehe does not point to a ringer.

 

Conditions held back the GT2 more that day, but it was still 6+ seconds faster in the hands of Chris Harris. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Suzuki set his 7:38 time with Dunlops, not Bridgestones. From the Nissan press statement:

"For the tests conducted at the Nurburgring where the lap times of 7:38 and 7:29 were recorded, the Dunlop tires were used. The tires – which are designed for high performance driving in the dry and wet - used in the tests were identical to the production specification tires available to GT-R customers."

Suzuki is also on record as saying he prefers the Dunlops over the Bridgestones for circuit driving.

As far as wet vs. dry, neither of the tires the GT-R comes with perform as well as the GT2's Cups on a fully wet track, apparently. On warm, fully dry tack, the Dunlops are the choice for the GT-R. Clear?

As far as what speed Suzuki's GT-R hit on the Hoehe before Tiergarten, you're guessing based on a screen-cap of a fuzzy data trace that has no clear speed demarcations.

 

It's hard to comprehend because at first you say conditions were dry (and thus the GT-R made use of its superior grip), and now you are saying the conditions were not dry. So...which is it?

If Suzuki set his 7:38 with Dunlops, then subtract as much as 15 seconds (as Harris allows for Suzuki's driving and the tires) from his 7:56. What time do you get? 7:41. Now you are quibbling over 3 seconds and crying "cheating"?



There is an upper and a lower limit. From that, it's not hard to figure out the speed. Rotate the picture to get vertical/horizontal lined up, adjust for contrast, then enlarge to whatever size you need for whatever level of precision you need (3x's is a good starting point).
Using this method, you can determine within a few 1/10ths of a second where Suzuki is on track, and how fast he is going. It matches the video, and that's how I arrived at where the first "290 kph" moment occurred (at Schwedenkreuz, and the actual speed is within 6 kph of independent tests). It tells you in no uncertain terms that the 2nd did not occur on the straight where DR and Sport Auto take their readings, as monaroCountry continues to believe to this day.

 

Where, specifically, did I say the track was not dry? I said - exactly as the article states - the GT2 had a significant and somewhat unexpected traction advantage on the completely saturated track. (Both due to its lighter weight and Cup tires). When the track had (mostly) dried, the advantage swung in favor of the GT-R.

I don't recall crying "cheating" over Suzuki-san's 7:38 time. Again, you're just making things up. I would, however, wager the majority of Suzuki's lap times were closer to the 7:40 mark than the 7:30 mark. If Nissan weren't hell bent on overhyping the GT-R, they'd have published the more conservative number and left it at that.

 

Even when the track (mostly) dried, there were still sections of damp and oily places. Did the advantage really swing in favor of the GT-R? Nope. In the cold, damp conditions, the GT2 lost time (compared to when dry) in acceleration, but the Nissan's mass meant it was pushing wider in corners when it normally wouldn't (in non-slippery conditions). How much both would improve in better conditions is pure conjecture.
When you cite Harris's words at the end ("It could be argued that the conditions suited the Nissan better, but still the Porsche was faster"), aren't you implying that the track was sufficiently damp/oily enough such that a car like the AWD GT-R should theoretically have the advantage? How does 7 degrees C temps favor the GT-R? It doesn't.

That's a wager you'd likely win. Nissan never said the majority of Suzuki's lap times were closer to the 7:30 mark. In fact, by openly admitting that it took them that many sessions, thousands of laps, and perfect conditions to get the sub-7:30's, they are transparent about the extraordinary circumstances under which these times were set. If Marc Basseng can come back a year later and knock 4 seconds off his previous best in a sick Zonda (with potential, in a 100% condition Zonda, of taking 8 seconds off of the prior time), why is would it be impossible that Suzuki could find 11 seconds under better conditions and the improvements in the 2010 GT-R?
Overhyping the GT-R, LOL. This nose-heavy 3900-lb 2+2 car on runflat tires and steel brakes is lapping inside the narrow margins between a Scuderia and GT2. I'm not sure there's enough "hype" to convey how extraordinary that is. It ran the time it did during testing, and since no one here was present, who are we to claim "cheating"? On the basis of what? Don't tell me it's power/wt.

 

Small problem, the Z06's top speed is true and documented.

 

It wouldn't matter if the GTR runs in the 7:10's at the " Ring " its certainly not a peer to the GT2 or ZR1.

 

There was an independent test confirming that to be the Z06's top speed on the 'Ring? Where?