Im actually more interested in Robert_nashvilles impression of the GTR then the outcome of Porcshe/GTR.

 

What Porsche should do is take the car they bought have Nissan come look at it make sure its fine to run throw those "used" tires on it or similar and tell Nissan to go do it again..

If this car can do this or similar times over and over again why is it not just saing it will prove it...Nissan is beating around the bush..and the customers are paying for it..one trans at a time..

 

If anything, the Porsche would be harder to drive by virtue of the engine being located at the back!

I wonder if Robert has given some thought there when he questioned the abilities of Porsche's test driver?

 

i dont even know what to say... i was going to type a response to this, but its obviously not worth my, or anyone elses breath... I cant believe someone can go to the point of saying physics are obviously not as strong as we thought, just to defend a car... You could call me a vette/camaro nuthugger and everyone here knows threxx is a lexus nuthugger and there are plenty of people like that here, but i have never seen someone so set in their ways, unable to admit they might just be wrong... Show me a story about scientists coming close to making something teleport, or invisible... And saying the GTR is the most technologically advanced car is crazy... ya its loaded with computers but they seem to be there to keep it from breaking itself ...

 

Wow you make the GTR out to be the Starship Enterprise or Millennium Falcon. It's a very tech savvy vehicle for sure but the only teleportation was Nissan's ability to start and stop the timer at the Nurburgring as they saw fit.
Sorry but as good as the GTR is it's still bound by the same laws of physics the rest of the cars produced today. Nissan engineers haven't found a wormhole at the Ring and thus the tech this car was designed and built under isn't any better at bending the space/time continuum than other vehicles produced today. I also highly doubt that Nissan's dessert testing involved a trip to Roswell or that time travelers came back in time solely to improve the GTR's time at the Ring. So save this speech for Stephen Hawking and focus on the relevant. This is one car with 4 wheels driving at one track on planet Earth in the year 2008. The GTR's power to weight ratio and grip levels under atmospheric conditions present at the track when tested all matter. Porsche is most likely talking about the use of street vs. race tires as opposed to a flux capacitor.

 

A valid point. However, some have suggested that they actually get better times in the GT-R by simply hamfisting it and letting the electronics step in.

Which could mean that an experienced driver who knows the track but isn't an "expert" about the car itself could still wring the car out all the way. Or, it could mean that the Porsche driver left a few seconds on the table by trying to drive the GT-R like a Porsche (or whatever).

One would think he'd try more than one approach, especially since magazines have written on the subject already.

 

Did you read my post, or are you just this stupid? Remember the part I put about the vocal minority? Very few (and I mean VERY few) scientists and physicists EVER said that airplanes were impossible. The heavier-than-air idea was touted by a few lighter-than-air proponents as impossible. Most of these people WERE NOT PHYSICISTS, they were people who owned or were employed by companies that manufactured lighter-than-air craft (dirigibles and airships). They were interested in keeping the market from transiting to heavier-than-air craft just like people back during that time who manufactured horse-drawn carriages were interested in keeping people from buying engine-driven autos. Just because they can come up with some BS information that they pass off as facts does not make them RIGHT! Maybe you should try remembering a little harder next time and come up with some REAL information, rather than spouting a bunch of BS that isn't accurate (although that does seem to be your modus operandi for posting).

In regard to theoretical physics such as teleportation and invisibility, these things weren't just pulled out of thin air because Star Trek writes came up with some sci-fi idea. Besides the fact that THEORETICAL physics has absolutely nothing to do with the well known physics principles that automobiles operate under, these ideas aren't new. Quantum physics has been around since the early 20th century, but we are just now gaining the technology to explore many of its aspects. These concepts were predicted by quantum physics many decades ago. Just because we are experimenting with them now doesn't make the other laws of physics obsolete. Teleportation has nothing to do with classical physics, which is what the GT-R operates under, so just because we are discovering new areas in theoretical physics doesn't allow it to break the laws it must operate under.

Oh, and as for Newton's laws, you do happen to know that they were superseded by Einstein's theories quite a while ago, right? And those "inconsistencies" you are trying to pass off to allow the GT-R to do whatever it wants regardless of the laws of physics are far higher order equations involving relativity, not classical physics. F=ma didn't change under relativity, and the GT-R doesn't get to violate it just because you think it should.

And I'm not basing the GT-R numbers off a few tests by Porsche, I'm basing it off data from numerous different sources that have shown it isn't as fast as Nissan claims. If Nissan wanted to verify the claims it made with the GT-R, why doesn't it take a showroom floor model down to a track, put a professional driver in it, and then let an independent source verify that it hasn't been modified in any way from showroom stock? So far, there hasn't been ANY evidence to suggest the the showroom GT-R can put up the number Nissan originally made with its original Ring cars and those cars no longer exist to determine whether they were modified or not. So which makes more sense: The GT-R can violate the laws of physics or Nissan cheated, then lied about the stock condition of the car. Well, I know which one I'll put my money on (I also know that I'll win too).

Oh, and if you want, I could write you up a set of equations to show that a 480 HP/440 Ft Lbs car weighing 3800+ lbs can't accelerate as fast as a 638 HP/605 Ft Lbs car weighing 3300 lbs. You won't understand it, that much is obvious from your replies, but I can do it if you like.

 

Don't go too far with this one, man, scientists actually have accomplished these things under experiments. They are, of course, extremely preliminary experiments, but they have managed to teleport atoms and have started making some light-bending materials that can mimic background items to appear invisible. These, of course, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WITH THE GT-R AND ITS RING TIMES (caps emphasis added in case Robert_Nashville wants to try to use this to further support his ignorance about physics). But they are happening, even if the applications are probably decades away from regular use.

 

Production vehicle?!?!?!
787 dreamliner?
Nimitz Aircraft carrier?
Aegis Cruiser?

So fine. Road vehicle. There are tractor trailers that might dispute your claim on their own. Beyond that, there are plenty of production CARS that would dispute that. You might as well have just said the laws of physics stuff on yourself - making such a bold claim that its the most advanced production vehicle EVER MADE...

As am I, having been in one myself (though not behind the wheel). It also wasnt on a track, so I couldnt really give a solid opinion aside from ride quality and interior fit and finish.

 

True. That means we have no way to know where they stack up. If the Dunlops did indeed net a 7:29 lap time like Nissan says they did, then they are obviously a pretty good performance tire. However, that doesn't tell us anything about road noise, tread wear, feedback, or anything else like that -- only grip.



First of all: the 911 Turbo is AWD. The GT2 is RWD only.

What makes you think that Robert, having driven the Nissan once (and, in all probability, having never driven a 911 of any kind) is qualified to offer such details? I'm sure he can't.

Having said that, his presumption that the 911 and the GTR are entirely different creatures is entirely valid.

Oh? It knows a lot about technology?

I don't think "savvy" is the word you wanted.

You might, but signs are starting to point with increasing consistency to that not being the case.

 

Oh ya didn't hear. The GTR is an actual living thing now. Nissan engineers decided since it will need to teleport and bend the space/time continuum it might as well come to life. It's like a transformer except instead of saving the world it just breaks the laws of physics on road courses. It's old news and probably on their site someplace.

 

Doh, my mistake! All this while I thought it was AWD.

But still, the Corvette ZR1 has no trouble being quick around the 'ring... so I don't know why the Porsche GT2 would be slow by comparison.

 

Well, there is the matter of the 100 hp deficit...

 

Yes but there isn't a deficit to the Nissan. Just a superior power/weight ratio. What I was suggesting was that RWD isn't an impediment to quick times.