There are two things to take from this: What was the speed of both cars coming out of the previous turn? Also, was the Vette going pedal to the metal? We could add a third, in asking was the vette just below its "sweet spot" coming out of that turn, and maybe the Nissan was "in the zone"? I think too many assumptions are being made based on a tiny section of video.

 

Why…because I don’t immediately assume Nissan cheated just because Porsche claims it? Is my defense of Nissan any less or even as passionate than what often passes for great posts here in support of GM’s offerings?


Just because I don’t fall down in worship at the alter of Porsche doesn’t mean I exclude or discount anything but I surely don’t consider them infallible nor are they a disinterested party in all of this.


Perhaps “hate” is too strong a word although some have publicly proclaimed their hatred of Nissan and/or of Japanese brands in general.

It is clearly evident from the derisive remarks made by many that they at least strongly dislike anything “non-domestic” - while a lot of that is to be expected on a GM fan forum, some of these sentiments reach a level of irrationality that’s difficult to understand.

Sometimes, however, “non-domestic” becomes much less of an issue for many when talking about certain manufacturers from certain countries (Germany and Italy for example)…I don’t know why that would be (but I think some of that is showing through here).

Many people seem willing to draw conclusions from assertions and mostly, it would seem, because it’s Porsche making the assertions. Apparently these folks either can’t or won’t accept any reason other than cheating could possibly explain the difference Porsche observed.

Skepticism about Nissan’s claimed ‘ring time is understandable; maybe even healthy but most of what I’ve seen posted in this thread is a long way from mere skepticism.

 

I've not even watched the video yet ( ).

My impression was that it was over a rather long section of straightaway, but you raise legitimate questions nonetheless.

 

You don't need to be a theoretical physicist to know something is up with the GT-R ring times. A very basic understanding of physics is all you need.

And you are totally incorrect when it comes to the oft-cited "laws of physics." It isn't the laws of physics that says these things, its people who either misunderstand or misrepresent laws of physics to try to prove their point. They are also a vocal minority, rather than the majority.

Face it, Robert_Nashville, the GT-R ring times aren't in keeping with ANYTHING we've found out about this car. About the only thing that hasn't happened is Nissan finally coming out and stating that they didn't use regular production vehicle (whether they will or not, who knows). No one is able to duplicate the numbers Nissan produces with a car available off the showroom floor. You can try to come up with whatever you want to try to cover this up, but it isn't going to change the facts.

I'm not going to bring up the various "mechanical issues" with the GT-R, they aren't verifiable as far as I'm concerned (at least until we have far more info than what is currently available). They also aren't really relevant to the situation that the showroom GT-R isn't capable of the times that were given by Nissan. The only thing that matters is just that. Nissan lied. The GT-R might be every Japanese import-lovers wet dream, but it isn't the supercar killer it was promoted as. What they did to make those numbers happen, whether upping the boost, using different/modified tires, changing the suspension, or using a combination of these things (or even more changes that haven't been listed) is about the only thing left to determine.

The showroom GT-R is still a very capable vehicle for the price. It's just not as capable as Nissan has claimed or the hype made it seem to be.

 

And other than their own opinion of themselves, what makes most posters who claim “laws of physics” equate to having an understanding of them? Even Newton cited exceptions and inconsistencies in his own writings about his own laws of motion!

Almost every day, technology is making the impossible, possible.

While I don’t remember it personally, it wasn’t all that long ago that physicists claimed that airplanes were impossible. Teleportation and invisibility, once only possible in the minds of sci-fi writers (can anyone say Star Trek) were thought to be impossible yet real theoretical physicists today are saying they may well be possible and are working on making them a reality.

The GT-R is likely the most technologically advanced production vehicle made so far – to just dismiss its performance claims as impossible based on vague claims about the “laws of physics” or because Porsche claims "we couldn't do it" is disingenuous at best.

To just assume Nissan lied because other manufacturers say so makes sense only to those who want the claim to be true.

 

I'm living in the "ignorance is bliss" camp on my side, but why doesn't porsche bring Nissan's GT-R driver to drive the GT-R Porsche bought? Nissan can check out the car, and make sure the vehicle is in factory specs, and this thing can be put to rest.

 

I asked a similar question earlier.

Porsche has claimed that Nissan must have used significantly different tires than street tires (meaning racing tires or something similar). So, I questioned why Porsche didn't test their GT-R with the tires they apparently believe Nissan used.

I would think that had Porsche did that and got to/close to Nissan's 7:29 time, it would seem to me that it would strengthen their claim that Nissan used such tires.

 

The base Corvette uses Goodyear Eagle F1 run-flat tires. Z51 and Z06 use Eagle F1 Supercar tires, also run-flat. I wouldn't call them crappy -- they're great tires, but they're not the best. The ZR1 uses Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s (still run-flats), which are pretty widely accepted to be the best-performing summer-only street tire out there. This is the tire used by almost every supercar out there -- the top models from Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Bugatti, even Koenigsegg -- they all come with PS2s. The only exception I know of are a couple of cars (911 GT3 for example) that come with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires, which are basically race tire.

I'm not familiar with the Bridgestones or Dunlops offered with the GT-R, so I don't know where they rank. My guess would be somewhere above the F1 Supercars but below the PS2s.

If GM sold a 2002 Camaro SS with said sticky tires, and advertised that with said tires the car could run a 12.5 quarter mile (which it most likely could, assuming nothing broke), we would all be up in arms about it. We accept the "glass" 10-bolt because it generally only breaks when put to a task for which it was not designed.

Count me in... I only fragged third gear and bent the shift fork, but I'm there nonetheless.

A very reasonable guess.

Ring times are the new zero-to-sixty for performance cars. It's a pretty good benchmark for a car's overall performance capability.



Nobody here is claiming that the GT-R is or isn't underrated. That's not what matters. LS1 4th gens are underrated too. So what?

The problem being discussed is whether GT-R's are actually capable of attaining the performance metrics Nissan has advertised (7:29 at the 'Ring, 3.4 seconds to 60), and whether doing so will void the warranty or cause premature damage to the car.

More than just those. The Cobalt SS and HHR SS were tuned there, and the G8 if I'm not mistaken. GM has said that all SS-badged Chevies from now on will be tested there (and I think I remember something about all GXP's from Pontiac, too).

Oh man, that is priceless.

Interesting, though, that Nissan is suggesting what I guessed might be the problem back in post #59 (that Porsche's driver didn't extract the GT-R's full capability).

 

I don’t know where they would rank either but they were developed specifically for the GT-R


A point I think many have overlooked.

Nissan’s driver, aside from being an accomplished test driver, made thousands of laps at the ‘ring in the GT-R throughout its development; it’s only reasonable to think that he knew the car better and could get more out of it on that track than anybody else could at this point and after thousands of laps, I’d say he knew the track pretty well too. Porsche’s driver, while certainly intimately familiar with the track, could not have been as familiar with the GT-R as Nissan’s driver.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think that Porsche’s lap times were going to be slower for that reason alone.

I hope someone with no axe to grind will put together a head to head test under controlled conditions with Nissan’s, Porsche (and any other manufacturer that wants to be part of it) involvement so that some of these questions can be put to rest.

 

Thats my problem with this. There doesnt seem to be a standard. From Rolling starts to some kind of soft compound tires. I dont care whether 911 or GTR is faster but maybe the track or some impartial group could certify times and the companies could choose to have certified times or not.

 

Perhaps the ZR1 pilot also needs some driving lessons. On the video, you'll notice he raises his hand every time he makes a mistake during the standing lap at the 'ring. It's almost a sign he could go quicker.

To suggest that Porsche test drivers can't drive when they do countless laps at the 'ring, not just in Porches, is absurd, IMO.

 

If you truly think that then I can only conclude that you are being purposely obtuse.

Putting aside, for the moment, the two vehicle models involved, it’s absurd to suggest that a driver is going to step into an unfamiliar vehicle and be able to wring every once of performance out of it in equal measure to an equally skilled driver who has spent thousands of laps in that vehicle.

Bring the tremendous differences in characteristics between a GT-R and a 911 into the equation and the absurdity of the suggestion is off the scale.

 

oh god make it stop

 

OK Robert, given you are privileged enough to have sampled the almighty GTR, how would it differ to the almighty GT2... from a driver's perspective. Both twin turbo AWDs, the Porsche is supposedly the more powerful and lighter of the two... how would you alter your driving style to suit? How would your times be so different, given you have sampled both vehicles long enough to be confident of posting quick times?

Please explain Robert, as I'm quickly running out of obtuse comments to make.

 

should start coming up with acute comments then