Your position has become amusing.

Why do you come to that assumption??? Usually, if you enter faster, exit faster, your straightline speed is improved (without the need for more HP).

I may be going out on a limb on this, but I'll take that chance.

 

My comments was that the GT-R, driven by HvS who is not a racing driver, is noticeably faster in some corners than Basseng, who is a racing driver, in the Enzo.
Doettinger Hoehe, banner to banner:
Enzo: 22.22s
7:26 GT-R: 23.19s

Nissan's telemetry. Like I said, do the calculations. Did you do them yet?

 

This can often happen. It happened on the Isle of Man where Autocar did their Britain's Best Driver's Car comparo. On two short straights, the GT-R hit a higher peak speed than the LP560-4. It didn't do this because it has better acceleration; indeed, the LP560 had a steeper acceleration curve all over the course. It did this because it could maintain a higher speed through the turns, most noticeably in the higher speed kinks. The Lambo had to slow down much more, whereas a brush of the brakes was all that was needed in the GT-R.




This was reprinted in an Australian magazine (did you miss it, monaro?):

"It's hard to say which one of these cars was scarier or more exciting to drive across our road. The Lambo was so rapid at the top end, yet if anything the GT-R was even crazier, mainly because it could generate so much speed into and out of the corners.
There was one bend that we'll never, ever forget: a fast but totally blind uphill right-hander approached at well over 160Km/h. In the Lambo you'd have your eyes closed before turning in, heart in mouth, as the 560-4 threw itself towards the apex, almost on full throttle but not quite. In the GT-R the same bend was completely flat. It went in on the limiter at 180Km/h and came out at exactly the same speed.
In sectors one and two, where the wretched speed limiter played no part, it obliterated the others with times of 31.3sec and 51.5sec (Lambo at 32.1sec and 53.4sec). Only in sector three, where the Lambo spent much of the time beyond 190Km/h and actually touched 210Km/h at one point, did the GT-R get dropped, losing over three seconds to the Gallardo as a result.
So despite the fact that the Lambo set the fastest time of all, at an incredible 1min55.9sec, the GT-R had to get the nod overall. Take its speed limiter away and it would have gone a good three seconds faster, thrashing the Lamborghini and beating the KTM - supposedly a pure-bred road racer - by over 5 seconds. Wow.
It really is an extraordinary car, the GT-R, be that on road or track and seemingly in any conditions. Yet perhaps its biggest achievement is how readily it delivers such monumental performance without being in the least bit unpredictable. Anyone with a driving licence and a half-decent level of self-restraint could drive a GT-R quickly without scaring himself.
And that's before you factor in its price, at which point the argument in its favour goes beyond all doubt. It is, without question, our best driver's car of 2008."

 

Cats. Heavychevy likes them.

 

It still had it's speed limiter on...

How embarrassing for Lamborghini. LP560? That's amazing.

 

Clearly the Lambo is not a natural competitor to the ACR and Enzo. The Speed limiter excuse is all well and good only when you actually reach those speeds. If the track is tight then you might not even hit or less likely to hit the limiter.

7:52 --- 157.12 km/h - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-5, 560 PS/1590 kg (sport auto Supertest 11/08)
7:57.46 -- 155.47 km/h - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4, 560 PS/1456 kg (AutoBild sportscars 08/08)
8:01.90 153.99 km/h - Audi R8, 420 PS/1620 kg (AutoBild sportscars 11/08)
8:04 --- 153.22 km/h - Audi R8, 420 PS/1595 kg (sport auto 07/07)

 

You got it from a video? lol



Show them to me.

 

Well, they did reach those speeds and the GT-R lost 3 seconds to the Lambo when it hit its limiter, and finished only slightly behind the Lambo. W/o the limiter, it would have decimated the Lambo on that road.
LP560-4: 353 hp/tonne
GT-R: 273 hp/tonne

 

Sure. What's LOL about that? Are you now claiming that Enzo did NOT beat the GT-R from banner to banner?

I'll get you started.


Pick a point on the 7:29 video that corresponds with the point where Sport Auto marked the GT-R's top speed. That's about 200m before the overhead bridge, well before the left-hand kink @ Antoniusbuche; just after the pit entrance on the straight. It's about 7:04.21 on the timer in this video.

 

monaro, are you having trouble with the calculations? Let me know. It shouldn't take you anymore than a few minutes. Here's the next step:



BTW, remember how you were posting all over the 'net last year that von Saurma said of the GT-R:
"7:40 is pretty much optimistic, 7:50 shows the true potential of the car"?

Does von Saurma say in the supertest that under 7:30 is optimistic? I don't think he does. The test is online, and here are some of the remarks, translated mostly online:
"Round times published by Nissan before a legend formation initiated, which corresponds to the reality not completely, but quite close comes. The delta between the time of 7,38 minutes and the recent Nissan indication, realized in the supertest, amounts to twelve seconds."
"The fantastic drivingdynamic characteristics of the new Nissan GTR are proven, even if the proof failed on our part somewhat more weakly than those of the manufacturer. With the round time on the Nürburgring Nordschleife of 7,38 minutes the supertest candidate misses the time of 7,26 minutes, indicated by Nissan, brings in themselves thereby however nevertheless on a performance level, which was reached so far only by a few proven supersportscars. The way, with which Nissan GT-R the achievement achieves, is astonishing. With scarcely 1.8 tons weight, it is not entitled to this measure of driving dynamics actually. The fact that it manages it despite its size and mass with such superior talents in the frontier to become before digit, may be called a small technical miracle."

Overall rating: 74/80
(Z06: 68/80
997 Turbo: 72/80
997.2 PDK: 72/80
Ford GT: 69/80
M3: 65/80
Zonda F: 75/80)

Apparently, from Sport Auto themselves, a difference of 12 seconds can be considered "quite close." (And HvS would know, seeing how he is slower than many factory and race drivers by an even larger margin.) Von Saurma seems to say that it was a failing on his part to meet the factory time, not that Nissan cheated/lied. And it was only "somewhat more weakly," not the humongous, unbridgeable gulf of time you keep implying. He says the GT-R does not perform to its expected power/wt (contrary to your expectation of "too heavy, not enough power"), that the way it composes itself is nothing short of miraculous. I don't see where he doubts the 7:26 time, or says that Nissan cheated/lied.

 

monaro won't respond to all of this - he's going to interject something else.

 

Yeah, like how the GT-R can possibly outrun a 599 on a fast track like the 'Ring when it gets absolutely clobbered by the 599 at high speed and was already beaten on Motor Trend's tight 1-minute track. Oops, Sport Auto already proved that.

I'm beginning to think his statements about HvS and the GT-R's fahrberichte were BS anyway. The translation of the fahrberichte is:

"About 100 kilometers of the Nordschleife were added for a test on the part of sport car still. Even if the time of under 7,40 minutes, thrown by Nissan for the GT-R self-confidently into the ring, may sound somewhat bold, then the time of 7,50 minutes, driven from the author despite a still damp passage in one of the key curves of the Kesselchens, proves nevertheless one thing: The GT-R is a racer."

"may sound somewhat bold" is not the same thing as "optimistic." Nor is the 7:50 time used as an indicator of the car's "true potential" (that it could not go any faster): the 7:50 time is used to highlight how very capable the GT-R is, even with a damp passage in a key curve of Kesselchens. It proves that the GT-R is a racer, not that 7:50 is its true potential. Guess heavyMonaro are caught out in yet another lie?


Here's a classic one from heavy:
"At the lightning lap C&D obviously tried two different sets of tires, and they claim the Dunlop summer tires were 3 seconds faster than even the RE070's. 3 SECONDS!!!!!!!! Three seconds over a already grippy street tire is insane, and ceratainly in R comp territory."

The real quote from C&D:
"If maximum speed is the goal, make sure to opt for Dunlop SP Sport 600 tires, which made the GT-R more than three seconds quicker than with all-season SP Sport 7010s."

Even with the all-season SP SPort 7010, which I believe is a 240 treadwear tire, the GT-R was still lapping about 2 seconds quicker than the C6 Corvette w/Z51 in the same test.

 

180mph is that correct?

Driver Republic only achieved 168mph.




As mentioned before the GTR seems to be closer in performance to the GT3, not the GT2 or heaven forbid the CGT.
Vehicle Hockenheim North Loop Nissan GT-R 1.10,7 min 7:38 min
Porsche 911GT3 1.10,4 min 7:40 min

 

Wrong. 180 mph is incorrect. 180 mph is the speed Suzuki reached AFTER the kink (notice the steering angle on the graph!), and is his peak speed anywhere on the track. That forms the upper limit of speed values, 290 kph. Look here, you can use this same method to show where the 290 kph was reached, and it matches the video almost to the 1/10th of a second:


Sport Auto marked a spot some 200m before the overhead bridge, and thus before the kink. Look at Step 2 here:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5807/08ck.th.jpg

I'll give you one more day to work out a 2-minute (at most) calculation. Quit being stubborn and do the proper calculation.



Same-day test in Evo, monaro:
Bedford Autodrome
CGT - 1:23.3
GT2 - 1:23.5GT-R - 1:23.6

 

^^^ hahah.