Nissan's own peole admit to using cut tires. A nissan press release then said that they used factory tires... My conclusion is that they either used cut down run flat tires or that they used whatever they wanted and lied in the press release.

 

German and other Euro car companies had used the Ring for testing, development and making hot laps for years. GM started doing the same thing on the C5-C6 then CTS-V and now Camaro development and testing. But nothing brought the hype and now debate to the Ring times until Nissan made it front and center with the GTR run and posted the video on their site. The car ran a fantastic time and so started the debate and scrutiny of that lap. Nissan got the press and hype worthy of the GTR but as has been seen lately with Porsche calling them out. Is it the kind of press they want?

 

It appears that you do.

And this test from Porsche is to be excluded, correct? I will admit to the following. I had great expectations of the GTR. The previous GTR had incredible potential. This car was lauded as the greatest car Nissan built. I don't dispute this. When I learned of the specs of this car, before any numbers were published, I thought to myself "waaaay too heavy, and not enough power." I expected this car to be a mid 12 second in the quarter mile, with performance on par with a regular (non Z06) Corvette. What did I base this on? Physics and knowing what other cars are capable of what times with what characteristics. Thus, when the initial numbers were coming in, it stood out in my mind as "ringer".

So now, finally some numbers are showing up which show that not everything is peachy with this GTR as claimed. The numbers that we see now are more in agreement with the laws of physics, given the car's weight and power.

That's because even God himself would not authenticate the times given by Nissan. As for the people who hate nissan/asian brands - who are they? Why not instead focus on those who are far more balanced? I don't love Nissan, but most definitely I don't hate it. There are others here like me as well.

I suspect you won't admit to interference on Nissan's part even when more evidence comes out, and if Nissan should by chance admit some discrepancies, you will play them down.

I give credit where credit is due. I don't believe in domestic car superiority. I and my family have a love for Audis - you won't see me defending them to the extent that you love the GTR. In fact, it's EXTREMELY likely my next car won't be an Audi, as much as I love them. I recognize their reliability and expensive repairs issues.

Nevertheless, are you a professional race car driver? Did you put that GTR through back-to-back comparison with timers? Or did you go by the seat of the pants feeling? Because the seat of the pants feeling is worth crap when you're disputing numbers.

In fact, I can't help but get the impression that your defense of GTR and Nissan's claimed times is based on how you felt the GTR drove (and I can only imagine it's sex on wheels to drive spiritedly and on a race track). Having had this opportunity yourself, don't attempt to use it as somehow giving more weight to your arguments.

 

I have no verdict on the transmission...

But we can't even crack the 2.0 LNF ECU, and this Nissan sounds like it's protected from head to toe electronically - I don't know if it's even possible to tamper with GTR's ECU.

Judging by how much Nissan wants to extort money through regular dealer check-ups, I would imagine this ECU is bulletproof.

 

Riddle me this.

With the exception of the launch, why should the 3800# 480hp Nissan GT-R perform any better in straighline acceleration than the 3850# 500hp Shelby GT500?

In other words, I can understand how the GT-R is quicker in the quarter mile do to the AWD launch, but there is NO WAY it should trap higher than the GT500. Period.

And at least you can beat the snot our of a GT500 without worrying about things breaking. Oh, and for half the price.

 

Should basically trap about the same - REGARDLESS of launch - as long as neither has some weird gearing issue running it through the traps at the wrong point in the rev range.

 

What does "cut down tires" mean????? People keep passing this around but nobody seems to mention.

 

That would be where the tires are "shaved" to remove the outer layer of the tire, in essence "breaking-in" the tire, without actually having to break the tire in. Probably makes the tire heat up easier, as well.

 

it also takes a little weight off of the outside of the tire and if cut enough could expose more rubber since the tread depth is greatly reduced making it closer to a slick tire.

 

jalopnik
Thursday, October 9, 2008

LINK: http://jalopnik.com/5060960/nissan-o...riving-lessons

 

Shaving a tire makes it heat up less easily.

By shaving down the tread blocks on a streetable tire you get rid of the heat inducing, tire blistering tread squirm. Obviously the car will respond much more crisply as well. The tires will also last longer believe it or not. And FWIW, putting 20K miles on a set of tires won't accomplish the same thing because you're heat cycling them out.

You'd be surprised how quickly a full tread tire can overheat on course and a lap around Nurburgring isn't exactly a short trip.

 

That's the best part of that article, but then again the last time that happened many of the major cities in both countries were leveled

 

I love it when people throw around “laws of physics” as if they are theoretical physicists and actually have a deep understanding of physical laws and in particular, how those laws apply to vehicles on or off a race track.

The oft-cited “laws of physics” have long said many things were “impossible” - at least until someone proved that the “laws” were more written in sand than in stone.

 

Too true!

 

Still no mention by either camp about the power being stock...

Or about the GT-R's ability to accelerate as well as the 638 hp ZR1 on the straight (if the overlaid videos are accurate), when in reality it can't even accelerate with the Z06 except just after launch...