GT-R lap times exposed?
10-02-2008, 11:16 AM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Posts: 949
I looked up the ZR1's and GT-R's gearing. basically ZR1s 1st gear = GT-R's 2nd gear, 2 =3, 3=4, and so on until the ZR1 gets to its highway cruising 6th gear which the GT-R has no equivalent of. when both cars shift they stay in the meat of their powerband. based on awhp numbers of 480-500 for the GT-R and the 1st dyno test of a ZR1 being at 530 whp (which means the HP difference is not what it was previously thought, and that is disappointing for the ZR1 IMO) and the difference in weight, about 600 lbs, I would still expect the vette to walk away from a GT-R fairly easily. look what a similar powered vette does to an 03/04 cobra which weighs a little less than a GT-R does but doesn't have the aerodynamics of a GT-R. the cobra needs 80 whp to stay even with the vette.
even before porsche posted this test I didn't believe one bit a GT-R ran a 7:29. the 7:38 time is far more believable.
even before porsche posted this test I didn't believe one bit a GT-R ran a 7:29. the 7:38 time is far more believable.
10-02-2008, 11:31 AM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
The fact that the GT-R apparently accelerated on the long straight in lock-step with the ZR1 (I've not seen the side by side video) is all the proof I need that they cheated beyond tires.
Even if the tires were stock, the car would not be spinning them (with AWD) accelerating at higher speeds. This wasn't acceleration from a dead stop here. The ZR1 wouldn't be spinning them either. If all they changed was the tires, the car would not be accelerating like the ZR1. They had to have been using more power than the stock 480.
The LS9's powerband is bigger than the GT-R's pretty much anywhere. AND the ZR1 is 500 lbs lighter. If the ZR1 had a 2 speed gearbox with a 2.56:1 rear axle, I could see the GT-R having enough of a gearing advantage to matter.
That the GT-R is able to perform at Z06-levels is admirable. It does so with a very different approach, with lots of high tech enabling it to perform better than its static specs would suggest. It of course can't stay with a Z06 in terms of outright acceleration, but its AWD and sticky tires enable it to outdo a stock Z06 on various road courses, it seems. (I'd love to see the stock Z06 switch to the new tires used on the ZR1 in place of the Goodyears; I really think that is all it would take for the GT-R to be beaten in the straights AND the twisties.)
The idea that the GT-R can run with the ZR1 is a little nuts to me.
Even if the tires were stock, the car would not be spinning them (with AWD) accelerating at higher speeds. This wasn't acceleration from a dead stop here. The ZR1 wouldn't be spinning them either. If all they changed was the tires, the car would not be accelerating like the ZR1. They had to have been using more power than the stock 480.
The LS9's powerband is bigger than the GT-R's pretty much anywhere. AND the ZR1 is 500 lbs lighter. If the ZR1 had a 2 speed gearbox with a 2.56:1 rear axle, I could see the GT-R having enough of a gearing advantage to matter.
That the GT-R is able to perform at Z06-levels is admirable. It does so with a very different approach, with lots of high tech enabling it to perform better than its static specs would suggest. It of course can't stay with a Z06 in terms of outright acceleration, but its AWD and sticky tires enable it to outdo a stock Z06 on various road courses, it seems. (I'd love to see the stock Z06 switch to the new tires used on the ZR1 in place of the Goodyears; I really think that is all it would take for the GT-R to be beaten in the straights AND the twisties.)
The idea that the GT-R can run with the ZR1 is a little nuts to me.
10-02-2008, 02:51 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
Mizuno is the GTR Chief engineer. Oct 17, 2007
http://www.nissaneurope-newsbureau.c...95056384513968
The same release can be found here: http://www.nissan360.com/releases/release-2.php
But the other comments on that 7:29 laptime specifically said that it was on race cut tires!!! Nissan itself is now saying it was on production tires! Confused? Other sources said that the car used a modified suspension to "closer resemble US and European spec cars". That would be a non-Japanese production car. Another confusing variable...
Also, the original round of press vehicles that got such amazing results (above what the now dealer-ordered cars are getting) and the vehicles used on the Ring for those laptimes were *not* certified production vehicles or carried any mass-production approvals from any government. None of them carried public plates, and quite a few of them are long since crushed. This just means we'll never know what those cars did (or did not) have.
Originally Posted by Autoweek Oct 17, 2007
...But Mizuno suggested the GT-R could get anywhere from 7:44 on up, with most laps coming in between 7:55 and 7:58. So he suggested the GT-R’s strong suit was that it offered “the best cost per lap time.” For whatever that’s worth...
http://www.nissaneurope-newsbureau.c...95056384513968
Originally Posted by Nissan, May 1, 2008
Nissan today announced that its GT-R supercar achieved a lap time at the infamous Nurburgring in Germany of seven minutes and 29 seconds. Recorded on April 16 and 17, the GT-R used was a base specification car and fitted with the standard Japanese market tires. Driven by GT-R chief test driver Tochio Suzuki
Originally Posted by Mizuno, May 1, 2008
“At last year’s testing, we were frustrated by the conditions at the Nurburgring, always believing that the GT-R could go under seven minutes 30 seconds.”
But the other comments on that 7:29 laptime specifically said that it was on race cut tires!!! Nissan itself is now saying it was on production tires! Confused? Other sources said that the car used a modified suspension to "closer resemble US and European spec cars". That would be a non-Japanese production car. Another confusing variable...
Also, the original round of press vehicles that got such amazing results (above what the now dealer-ordered cars are getting) and the vehicles used on the Ring for those laptimes were *not* certified production vehicles or carried any mass-production approvals from any government. None of them carried public plates, and quite a few of them are long since crushed. This just means we'll never know what those cars did (or did not) have.
10-02-2008, 03:02 PM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Also, the original round of press vehicles that got such amazing results (above what the now dealer-ordered cars are getting) and the vehicles used on the Ring for those laptimes were *not* certified production vehicles or carried any mass-production approvals from any government. None of them carried public plates, and quite a few of them are long since crushed. This just means we'll never know what those cars did (or did not) have.
10-02-2008, 03:27 PM
#65
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
It's SOP for pre-production models to get crushed although I don't know if that's just a Nissan policy, or a general industry practice or a matter of statute. In the U.S., such vehicles can only be plated with a manufacturer's plate (I've no idea if Germany has similar requirements or not but I wouldn't be surprised).
In April of last year, there wouldn't have been any production U.S. spec vehicles; the Japanese spec vehicle was released in early December of '07 so the testing would have to have been done with a Japan spec vehicle...although again, I don't really think that would make any significant difference.
I may be wrong but I don't believe a manufacturer ever gets 100% control of the 'ring (meaning they can't really restrict access - if that's true, I'm a bit surprised that no one has a pic of the vehicle used that might help settle the "tire" question.
In April of last year, there wouldn't have been any production U.S. spec vehicles; the Japanese spec vehicle was released in early December of '07 so the testing would have to have been done with a Japan spec vehicle...although again, I don't really think that would make any significant difference.
I may be wrong but I don't believe a manufacturer ever gets 100% control of the 'ring (meaning they can't really restrict access - if that's true, I'm a bit surprised that no one has a pic of the vehicle used that might help settle the "tire" question.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 10-02-2008 at 03:30 PM.
10-03-2008, 11:24 AM
#66
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 471
Speaking of this car:
One of my techs just got back from a special Nissan training GTR deal. Here are some interesting Facts.
-Can only launch the car 15 times before the transmission gives out. The most Nissan has got was 34 launches.
-The fluid lists at 80 dollars a quart. It costs dealerships 49.99 a quart. The car takes 10 quarts.
-The warranty depends on the driving, there is a black box in it just like an airplane.
-Customers have to sign a waiver stating they will not complain about brake or transmission noise.
-The brakes MUST be replaced at the same time, cost for replacing 6500.
-If something goes wrong other than an oil change at the dealership, a special team needs to be called and your outta a car for a while.
So yea. Sounds promising. Sounds fast, for a couple of months.
-Can only launch the car 15 times before the transmission gives out. The most Nissan has got was 34 launches.
-The fluid lists at 80 dollars a quart. It costs dealerships 49.99 a quart. The car takes 10 quarts.
-The warranty depends on the driving, there is a black box in it just like an airplane.
-Customers have to sign a waiver stating they will not complain about brake or transmission noise.
-The brakes MUST be replaced at the same time, cost for replacing 6500.
-If something goes wrong other than an oil change at the dealership, a special team needs to be called and your outta a car for a while.
So yea. Sounds promising. Sounds fast, for a couple of months.
thats gay as hell
10-03-2008, 12:05 PM
#68
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
Why do you "quote" someone without citing who you are quoting?
Perhaps the better question is; whoever you are quoting, what makes them credible?
Call me crazy but if I posted something like that about...say...the ZR1 or Z06 (or in a year or two about the Camaro); I'd likely have to cite a dozen sources at least one of which would have to be Bob Lutz himself!
You can also call me suspicious about this "information" because there are no TSBs on these issues that I've seen or heard of (and I just checked a few moments ago).
Perhaps the better question is; whoever you are quoting, what makes them credible?
Call me crazy but if I posted something like that about...say...the ZR1 or Z06 (or in a year or two about the Camaro); I'd likely have to cite a dozen sources at least one of which would have to be Bob Lutz himself!
You can also call me suspicious about this "information" because there are no TSBs on these issues that I've seen or heard of (and I just checked a few moments ago).
10-03-2008, 02:23 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 2,402
Well, assuming that's what happened; if there are no "rules" governing such attempts; then anybody else could use whatever tire compound they wanted as well couldn't they?
If so...how is that unfair?
It might well be an important piece of information to have when making a comparison but I'm not sure it's unfair.
I know that when I take my vehicle to a track day or an autocross, I'm usually running something other that street tires but some people do use their stock/street tires...am I being unfair or am I just using the best equipment available to me?
If so...how is that unfair?
It might well be an important piece of information to have when making a comparison but I'm not sure it's unfair.
I know that when I take my vehicle to a track day or an autocross, I'm usually running something other that street tires but some people do use their stock/street tires...am I being unfair or am I just using the best equipment available to me?
Facts. The competition actually beats the GTR.
Person A was thus misled and acquired an inferior product.
This is tantamount to false advertising.
What is not clear here?
10-03-2008, 04:32 PM
#70
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
It's very simple. Person A wants to buy the fastest track car of the several he had chosen. By trusting the numbers Nissan published, he believes that the GTR by far beats the competition.
Facts. The competition actually beats the GTR.
Person A was thus misled and acquired an inferior product.
This is tantamount to false advertising.
What is not clear here?
Facts. The competition actually beats the GTR.
Person A was thus misled and acquired an inferior product.
This is tantamount to false advertising.
What is not clear here?
This proverbial person is willing to plunk down at least $70K (or perhaps several times that much) and his only criteria is to get the “fastest” track car and he's going to determine that solely by what a manufacturer claims were their ‘ring times (even though there is no way authenticate the claims that anybody makes about their ‘ring times and that there are no rules a manufacturer must follow in testing their vehicle)?
Do you really think that is a believable scenario (which it has to be for your story to really make any sense)?
I don’t think that most people would be that stupid but if they are, they deserve to be parted from his money.
As I’ve said about a half-dozen times now, if Nissan lied about the testing/how they achieved their claimed time then they deserve what they get but the only thing “clear” in this whole thread is that Porsche is pissed and is making accusations – anything beyond that is all speculation and swags.
I’ve seen car commercials where, if they were to be believed, buying the car advertised would make you into a James Bond and give you a new, perfect, beautiful women in your bed every hour…I guess those ads were “unfair” too!
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 10-03-2008 at 04:36 PM.
10-03-2008, 07:19 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
I'm not about to dig up all the reviews of the first GTR's on US Soil because (1)I dont subscribe to a dozen different car mags and (2) its a friday afternoon out here and I'm not spending an hour doing it right now.
Point is, the times almost all the initial cars gave (pre-production cars) for performance were directly implied to the magazines and groups that the cars they had were representative of US production vehicles. These vehicles came out - as the vehicles today - listed at the same 480hp. Yet many of the 'pre-production' vehicles got some dramatically faster 1/4 times, 0-60 times, and even some different handling characteristics.
Nissan may not have put it in literal writing (which, being a pre-production vehicle they didnt actually have to) that they were of production caliber, but they implied it. When you tell a senior editor of a national magazine that they can write the article knowing the production car will share performance figures, that implies the production car will give the same results pretty clearly.
And that implication at such a level can legally come back and bite you in the *** either as fraud or false advertising. I keep using it because intentionally mis-representing or mis-leading customers via verbal comments or in writing is considered fraud.
Is Nissan the only one in history to ever do this? Obviously not. Even recently, auto manufacturer's make all sorts of claims. But there is a difference between saying something and shouting it at the top of your lungs in the village square. Firstly, you're attract more attention - and secondly, people will take you more seriously and literally (unless you're one of those religious nuts that does it every day).
As I’ve said about a half-dozen times now, if Nissan lied about the testing/how they achieved their claimed time then they deserve what they get but the only thing “clear” in this whole thread is that Porsche is pissed and is making accusations – anything beyond that is all speculation and swags.
We, as knowledged automotive nut jobs know there will be a difference between initial concept, final concept, pre-production, final-pre-production, and showroom. But to have differences to this magnitude when the performance of the pre-production model was implied to be the same as the final production model...
...Its the same as the differing dyno results that have been all over the place. I understand that saying "its got 480hp" is still true if it dynos at 700hp to the wheels, but insurance companies and the federal government dont really like descrepencies like that. They want to know the rating within a close margin of every vehicle.
...
I understand fighting the opposite side of the arguement to (1) defend a car company you like and (2) take the opposite side for the purpose of starting a good debate - but there is so little evidence to support a two sided debate here. That is the problem. Nissan has lots of things that implicate them. Yes, Innocent until proven guilty... that is why there is no law-suit at this time.
You know full well the difference between showing James Bond in a car versus putting up a performance number on the screen. Putting a picture of James Bond next to a DB9S on the Aston Martin Webpage is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than putting a "laps the nurburging in 7:29" on the webpage next to a GTR. If you don't know that one of those is legally dangerous without a disclaimer and one is harmless... well...
10-03-2008, 09:03 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 3,749
hmmm...
Along with the pics robvas posted of the book and the shredded trans pictures.
made me think of...ahh here it is..
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...87&postcount=7
on 04-16-2008 I said
but hey ...if its true..thats not a production car thats a factory race car sold to be maintained by the buyer with very expensive upkeep....and at the cost of repairs..
you can get far cheaper cars for price per performance..
I think the GT-r is now being disproven on many levels..Yes it is a fast car..for what it is?? no..
Speaking of this car:
One of my techs just got back from a special Nissan training GTR deal. Here are some interesting Facts.
-Can only launch the car 15 times before the transmission gives out. The most Nissan has got was 34 launches.
-The fluid lists at 80 dollars a quart. It costs dealerships 49.99 a quart. The car takes 10 quarts.
-The warranty depends on the driving, there is a black box in it just like an airplane.
-Customers have to sign a waiver stating they will not complain about brake or transmission noise.
-The brakes MUST be replaced at the same time, cost for replacing 6500.
-If something goes wrong other than an oil change at the dealership, a special team needs to be called and your outta a car for a while.
So yea. Sounds promising. Sounds fast, for a couple of months.
-Can only launch the car 15 times before the transmission gives out. The most Nissan has got was 34 launches.
-The fluid lists at 80 dollars a quart. It costs dealerships 49.99 a quart. The car takes 10 quarts.
-The warranty depends on the driving, there is a black box in it just like an airplane.
-Customers have to sign a waiver stating they will not complain about brake or transmission noise.
-The brakes MUST be replaced at the same time, cost for replacing 6500.
-If something goes wrong other than an oil change at the dealership, a special team needs to be called and your outta a car for a while.
So yea. Sounds promising. Sounds fast, for a couple of months.
made me think of...ahh here it is..
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...87&postcount=7
on 04-16-2008 I said
I just think with all its do-dads wise the GTR is going to be so fragile its going to break..
Just seams to me for the price to performance it cant last that long without some serious upkeep..
Just seams to me for the price to performance it cant last that long without some serious upkeep..
you can get far cheaper cars for price per performance..
I think the GT-r is now being disproven on many levels..Yes it is a fast car..for what it is?? no..
10-03-2008, 11:03 PM
#73
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
That's supposed to prove what, exactly??? That someone can break the GT-R's transmission? Is there any care ever build that someone couldn't break?
I could show you pics of a wrecked GT-R too...is that supposed to prove they are unsafe to drive?
I asked who you were quoting in your earlier thred; not for a pic of a bused transmission; least of all a pic that had already been referenced.
I could show you pics of a wrecked GT-R too...is that supposed to prove they are unsafe to drive?
I asked who you were quoting in your earlier thred; not for a pic of a bused transmission; least of all a pic that had already been referenced.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 10-03-2008 at 11:06 PM.
10-04-2008, 12:03 AM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 603
That's supposed to prove what, exactly??? That someone can break the GT-R's transmission? Is there any care ever build that someone couldn't break?
I could show you pics of a wrecked GT-R too...is that supposed to prove they are unsafe to drive?
I asked who you were quoting in your earlier thred; not for a pic of a bused transmission; least of all a pic that had already been referenced.
I could show you pics of a wrecked GT-R too...is that supposed to prove they are unsafe to drive?
I asked who you were quoting in your earlier thred; not for a pic of a bused transmission; least of all a pic that had already been referenced.
Like I stated earlier, I wonder what Nissan's response will be to Porsche's challenge?