Yes, I think that, on a 14-mile track, that could absolutely make up 25 seconds. As I said before, it's only 0.34 seconds per corner. Driving the car in a manner other than the optimal one could make that difference.

I wonder how the air and track conditions varied between the day Nissan made their 7:29 run and the day Porsche made theirs. Maybe Porsche did it on a relatively warm but cloudy day (warm air, cool track), and Nissan did theirs on a cold but sunny day (cold air, warm track)?

I've read a lot of your posts, and I don't think that at all.

 

Do I tend to defend the GT-R - yes but I don't do so blindly.

If you've read the thread then you already know what I've said about Nissan if they've lied or cheated on their 'ring testing.

Yet there are posters on this board who have made it very clear that they hate Nissan and/or anything Asian and wouldn't believe Nissan's claimed time if God himself (or herself) had been in charge of the testing and authenticated the results.

I suspect I'm probably the only one on this board (or at least in this thread) who has had an opportunity to know at least a little of what the GT-R is capable of on the track...I also suspect that there probably aren't more than a hand full on CZ28.com who will ever own either a new GT-R or ZR1 or 911 Turbo or any other vehicle of similar price range/performance capabilities but hundreds who will post with undying certainty about how much better this or that vehicel is than the GT-R.

I've never claimed to be unbiased but I do at least try to be even-handed.

 

Oh, certainly! If I compare my times to that of a guy who sometimes drives my car at SoloII events, one of us might be 3% faster than the other at a given event - and it's not always the same guy who's faster!

Now, a 5% difference in times for professional drivers in what is nominally the same car points to a large difference in experience at that given track (the 'ring isn't one of these "go-kart" tracks that gives up all its secrets in a couple hundred laps), or pretty big set-up differences between the cars, or outright "cheating" by one of the participants.

I suspect all of the above elements are involved in this little squabble.

I think the only way to solve this issue would be for the OEMs to provide a driver, and have an independant source provide a truly showroom-stock example of each vehicle. Suspension adjustments within the factory limits will be allowed, just so long as the specifications for those adjustments are made public. No one touches the ECU.

 

You obviously have not had many life experiences with liars. The people who scream foul the loudest and defend themselves the most when everything points to them are usually guilty. The ones who don't even address it because it is so absurd its not worth their time are usually the innocent ones. These are the people who would "let the numbers speak for themselves" as Nissan claims, but obviously doesn't adhere to with their long winded, overdone, cheaters response

 

Well, the Porsche engineer is obviously very capable at the Ring and the track conditions were obviously very favorable, because he ran the fastest times recorded for the 911 and GT2 when comparing them to the GT-R. Thus, one can make a pretty good assumption that his GT-R time is a good representation of the cars ability.

Additionally, I highly doubt Porsche would make such a public and pointed claim if they weren't COMPLETELY CONVINCED the car could not go 25 seconds faster with just better driving because that could backfire on them miserably, tarnishing their reputation and leaving them with egg on their face.

 

Exactly, and the edge in experience/knowledge of the Ring has to go to the senior Porsche chassis engineer. For the sake of argument, we will say that the edge in pure driving ability/talent goes to the Nissan F1 driver and we will say the two balance each other out.

Thus, we are left with nothing but car setup, tires, power, etc. Hence, Nissan's at it again.

Hey Robert, go read up on the R33.....

 

Hey ZZ; speculation and assumptions about who is the better driver and what balances out are just big words for not really knowing anything substantial which is what makes up about 98.5% of this thread (including what Porsche had to say).

As I said, if God himself certified Nissan's results it wouldn't make any difference to many people here.

You all have a nice day!

 

I thought the GTR had a pseudo-automatic with fancy-schmancy launch control...

How does one grenade a tranny like that with a car that has that many electronic babysitters?

I can see how you could grenade a clutch in a Z06 or ZR1... beat up some syncros maybe... but what we were looking at there in that Nissan tranny was gear failure, not clutch/syncro failure.

 

nissan, or the car itself, is not the entire reason I'm not a fan of it.

 

While there is no proof, but how many people on this board have stock, as they came off the showroom floor, cars? There could have been tweaks to the ECU, removing the "limiters", and then you are jolting the transmission with a full power start. Again, I said there is no proof of the car being modified, but you never know.

 

Boy, it's awful darned early in that car's life to have had the PCM cracked already.

Took a couple of years to crack the LS1 if I remember correctly.

 

How long did it take to crack the iPhone? You get the right person in front of the issue, and it will look easy. I also don't rembember if it is in the post, or not, but who owned the car with the grenaded transmission? Was it a customer's car, or was this a test mule from Nissan? It could be one of those magazine test cars, like you would find a camaro with only 2K miles, but that probably equated to 8K quarter mile passes

 

I have 2!

 

Based on the posts on this board, you are certainly the minority.

 

Erm... forgive me for pointing out the obvious... but cracking a $500 iPhone ain't quite the same as cracking a $70,000 car's PCM.