Nothing is impossible with enough cost ;-) If a drivetrain engineer is saying they did it, I think they're a better authority on the subject than I am, I only have one year of engineering school under my belt and was terrible at it. so I preffer to deffer to the experts. "...Matsumura-san says ultra-low friction bearings in the wheel hubs and transmission, plus the careful alignment of the all-wheel-drive system's propshafts, mean friction losses are reduced to an unprecedented 10 percent or so. We're going to get a GT-R back and conduct some coast-down tests to see if he's right...." I agree with you that 10% on a mass produced AWD car would be an achievement, but Nissan has shown a lot of ingenuity and creative thinking in other areas of this car, so I put nothing past them. For example, they mounted the Engine at an Angle to the Torque tube, this was so under full load when the engine's twists against the mounts, it actually straighten's the drivetrain to a perfect line.... cool stuff. Reminds me of the twisted rods used on the LS6.
And this may be the point where you have lost credibility as a quality journalist. What, exactly, are your motives for your posts in Ferrarichat? Every single post is in defense of the GTR. Something smells fishy. Edit: Nearly every single
It's libel to say they're liars which is the impression you're giving me. The video was pretty clear. The feat was done, but if you think they are liars, then I'm not sure there is anything they could do to convince you. Area is a componet of Cd No that was C&D. Edmunds recorded a faster than normal time with a customer car. I agree that most AWD cars have significant loss, but as your links points out they have put special focus on going above and beyond on reducing drivetrain loss, so I think it is improper to apply the drivetrain loss of a DSM, or AWD truck on the GT-R. The jury is still out on what the actual loss figure is, I'm a terrible engineer so I'll let the experts solve that problem. Nissan claims "10% or so" I don't see any reason for them to lie about such a trivial thing. Fact of the matter is Customer Delivered US-Spec cars are also seeing a similar Wheel power number so the point is moot. Press cars make the same power as US-Spec customer cars....move along. I don't know what he has said, I didn't hear that interview, this is Nissan's press release service quoting 7:29 http://www.nissaneurope-newsbureau.com/nissanmedia/front?controller=SubRubrik&id=nissan_europe_press_room_10772091931250/news_and_events_10772871591872/presse_releases_10781508884370/corporate_10781511772180&pubId=gt_r_achieves_under______at_nurburgring_12095056384513968 What Make/Model/Brand was fitted then? The Nissan Press release states..."the GT-R used was a base specification car and fitted with the standard Japanese market tires. " Again I don't understand the point you're making. Tire life is always a consideration when racing. You choose the proper compromise between life and traction to fit what you're attempting to achieve. Again if Ad spend is your foil, you should be a larger skeptic of GM. I'm not a skeptic of either. I actually know GM engineers on Corvette, and they have a lot more respect for Nissan's achievement at the ring than I've seen on this board. They welcome the challenge have risen to the occaison and bested Nissan's time. Good for them. I am just as accepting of their time as I was of Nissan's. If weight is your argument, then why does an e46 M3 Which is heaver with less power beat a C5 Vette that is lighter with more power? Power/Weight is a factor, it's not the only factor. Which would you rather have around the ring, a Mustang Cobra GT500 or a e39 BMW M5?
I've never said I was a quality journalist, or even a good one. I'm an even worse engineer. That's why I'm citing other people with credibility rather than make any sort of argument based on my own. ;-) Every single one of your posts is to bash it, what are your motives? I've enjoyed Ferrari Chat as a lurker for some time, I don't post much, but when I see people I know in the industry being called liars, I suddenly have a reason to engage in the conversation, and even give those people a chance to defend themselves (which I did).
Previous V spec: Laptime claimed of 7:59 Same track, same driver, same kind of car; however, it was a customer car. Over 30 seconds off of the claimed time. I can understand 10 seconds on a track like that due to conditions alone. And how can you tell the video made is with a car that is of production spec? I know I cannot tell by looking at it. I also know that "retractions" were required to be made when Nissan lapped at 7:38 when Mizzuno openly said they used "cut slick tires" Which are visible in the video. I have now seen the GTR with the softer of the tires (Dunlop) in the flesh run aggressively. The tread pattern on that car is not that of the car that ran a 7:38 lap. Eagle eyes? No; just simple 20:20. I have yet to read anybody giving Nissan the tough questions. Seems I am finding a dead link to the edmunds test where they ran an 11.6 or 11.8 @ 111 mph (due to limiter) It was an earlier test in Japan in any case... When the most advanced AWD drivelines in the world aren't that efficient (read, WRC cars)... How, pray tell, did the 7:38 GTR hit 167 mph, and the 7:29 GTR hit nearly 180 mph on Dottinger Hoe??? Evidence of a ringer? Seems the quote I quoted was inaccurate. It was originally taken from the 2007 LA autoshow... prior to the 7:29 test, and 7:32 GT2 test. The point is that when the car is in customer hands, on-track performance will be pathetic after just a couple laps. Same as the Ruf RT 12 we drove at MSR... Unbelievable lap times for 3-4 laps... and grip degrades each lap after significantly. Last I checked, the C5 vette is only slightly lighter, with slightly more power, and much softer (we're talking base 1997 car With the automatic gearbox ) lapped @ 8:40, and the base E46 M3 is only 6 hp less, (euro numbers @ 346 hp) @ 8:22 with the SMG. The base C5 is a sloshy suspension. 2000 C5 FRC, or 2001 C5 Z06 are much faster then the E46 M3... I'm not talking about power to weight, and have not mentioned it a single instance. The closest is to suggest the GTR is making at least 530 hp to achieve 124 mph trap speed, and that the GTR that lapped the ring is making perhaps even more to top out nearly 180 mph. I am talking about the resistance to changing direction that additional mass creates. Edit: About your posts being fishy... you have been registered for two years; and suddenly now decide to post? I've been here for a while, and an active part of the Ferrarichat community; primarily within the regional areas, and in others where there is cross content. Only on special occasions do I crawl outside those areas. About your friend Steve Millen, He owns a Nissan dealer, makes some sort of Nissan part(s)... has been a race and test driver for Nissan. If you were looking for an unbiased opinion; and an unbiased drive.... would you logically conclude that Steve Millen is the ideal professional driver to use in a published test against Nissan's competitors?
Really not sure I understand what you're talking about here, you're saying the same driver in the same car as the 7:29 run or the same driver that did the 7:29 then drove a different car and was slower? Anyhow I have little doubt that the drier and car that did 7:29 did slower times previously and that 7:29 was their best lap. They've been at this for two years so I'm sure they have some runs where they've gone off road or shut it down that are flat out terrible.......perhaps I'm not understanding your point here. It's just as credible as the ZR1 video which I equally support. Where you calling BS on that one I would be defending the Vette Video. You're very suspicious. Link to a retraction? Link to picture? No, [email protected] with a customer car http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124017 If you think that's BS I can ask some of the guys I know there to pop on too like Steve did. Never seen Prodrive disclose that sort of info. Link? FWIW though the AWD system in an EVO or STi are not in the same leauge as the Borg Warner System used in the GT-R/M3/Porsche. As for the systems used in racing, those are fully blueprinted, and not really applicable either. Regardless I fail to see why you're arguing this point. Customer Cars and Press Cars are gnerating the same Dyno numbers so pressing this issue only confirms you are incorrect about the press getting "Ringers" Probably a much better Exit speed on the previous corner. That said Nissan stated they were unhappy with the conditions of the 7:38 run, so they probably just didn't give it as much stick. That would make sense then Perhaps, the Dunlops (very sticky) aren't as delicate as the R-Compound tires I've used, I would think they would hold up fairly well.... Personally it's the brakes I would be more concerned about, not the tires. Thank you for agreeing with my point that weight is not the only factor (And FWIW the C5 has a ton more torque than an M3) The late John Lingenfelter is the one that popularized the rule of thumb that ET represents Traction and MPH represents power used. The important point to make is that is "power used" no "peak power". John had a very good book on the subject discussing how an L98 with 100 less peak HP could equal the trap speed of LT1 by maximizing "power used" instead of "peak power". Granted peak power is important. The point is moot really because it goes back to power at the wheels which we've established is the same in customer cars as magazine cars. Yes and No, weight is not as important as Polar moment of inertia. The new e92 M3 is a very heav car (about the same as a GT-R in fact), but BMW keeps the weight low and close to the CG keeping the car light and flickable. I haven't driven one yet, but a I guy I know that races a M3 CSL says the new M3 feels just as light as an e46. Looking at the GT-R I really don't know how or where it's weight sits, I do know it has a long and wide track and it's a very large (dimensionally) car It has big tires, big brakes and a lots more traction, so the ingredients are there for maintaining high speed and quicker exits in the corners. If tuning and running cars has taught me anything it's that there are way too many variables to just look at a spec sheet and state this is what the car will run. The only way to really know is to run it. I'm on dozens of forums, and have been a big fan and reader of this site for years. As I said, people I know (not well mind you, but people in my circle) were being called liars, and facts were being spun and data was being ignored. I had plenty of reason to "stop lurking" and make sure the data was being presented objectively. I actually have a lot more connection with the Corvette community (15 years racing chevy product and My Wife's Uncle was platform manager for C4, C4 ZR1, C4 GS and C5) so if I have a bias it's very much on GM's side, but their claims are not being disputed. But again it's not my data, it's Nissan, Road and Track's, Edmunds, and pretty much everyone else in my circle on account of one test by C&D where they even said the car wasn't performing up to norms. In essence you're even saying Car and Driver isn't being honest when they say the GT-R is normally faster and that test was anomaly, ...since you're pointing to it as what is to be expected. You impress me as a very suspicious person, which isn't really a bad thing, a healthy dose of skepticism is good online. But so is an open mind. Not friends, we just travel in the same circles. I actually have more experience with his nephew Rhys Millen... who BTW drives a car for GM You forget he's also worked for Ford and Honda too. Most importantly Steve drove the Z06 around Buttonwillow FASTER than Car and Driver, so I find it hard to accept he was holding back on that car....given he beat their time. I've run that same time, and what he got for the Z06 is a fantastic time. You were callign Steve's credibility into question specifically which is why I talked to him (specifically).
I'm talking about the R34 (the one nissan claimed ran a NS laptime of 7:59) Where later, a magazine took the same spec car, with the same driver who set the 7:59 lap time, and were over 30 seconds slower on the privately (magazine) run attempt. Nissan stacked the deck on the car they publicized as a sub 8 minute car. Where I come from, we call that fraudulent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGe_fyhQazg @ 40 seconds http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f165732/0 " 'We used cut slick tyres' said Mizuno. 'I was not interested in full slick times as this bears no resemblance to a road tyre. 1.2G of force was being pulled in wet and over 2 in dry'." Retraction http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2007/10/2007-tokyo-auto-show-2009-nissan-gt-r-in-red.html "izuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world" Carrying 10 more mph through the final turn before Dottinger hoe does not equated to 10 mph more down the main drag on a track. Comparing the 1997 slushbox corvette against the E36 M3 of the same era is more appropriate. The E46 appeared in 2000, where the 2000 FRC would be directly comparable. Put Millen (or Mizuno for that matter) in the GTR, Henriechy, or Magnussen in the Z06 and ZR1, Rohl in the Porsche, etc. ) on the same day
I wonder how many people still read these pointless debates on the GT-R Nurburgring time...... not to mention this is supposed to be a ZR1 thread. Give it a rest~ I don't see people complaining GM lying about the ZR1 lap time, ringer-mobile Corvette, distorted space-time device, slick tires or race gas. So if Nissan is lying, then probably GM is doing the same thing, maybe Porsche lies about their ring time as well. Who knows, Autocar is an European magazine so they probably have a perference for European cars.............
Anyone see this, I found it on another board. "July 2008 BMW Roundel magazine (page 30) reported that the Nissan GT-R that posted the 7:29 lap time at the Ring was a 693 HP version of the car. I don't think Nissan is making that engine package available to the general public." This might explain alot....
Well, you're post is #160 in this one, and it has been viewed OVER 2600 TIMES!!! You are welcome to not read, not post, etc. Because most people on this thread are able to make the distinction between BS and NOT BS.
Funny, I thought it was a light weight V-Spec with no interior, slick tires, custom turbo 850hp 3200lb version of the GT-R that trapped 7:50 and then video edited to make it seem like it ran a 7:29.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z16SPM0WKdc&fmt=6 http://videos.streetfire.net/video/A-High-Speed-Ride-In-The_172181.htm
I'm a Roundel subscriber, and I'll be sure to ask Mr. Roemer (or that fellow Satch(?)) what evidence he has that the car has 693Bhp when no one else has stated this.
This video makes you wonder how the Nurburgring 7:29 spec GTR was even able to keep up with the 638hp Corvette ZR1 when the production spec GTR cant even get close to the Corvette ZO6 for both standing and rolling starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmyt52-c8c
Except neither of these are actually worth anything on the 'Ring. Tell me, do you always try to look for the tiniest of excuses to say the GT-R isn't fast? Because honestly, I'm surprised FChat & 6Speed haven't told you to hush like UCP has. The web is sick of hearing it. We get it already, you hate the GT-R and you believe every good review of the car was a "ringer", and every bad review wasn't. But be quiet for a change. You're constantly on multiple forums posting the same crap, and this forum is the only one I've seen that hasn't told you to give it a rest.
Psssssss, I heard this strange rumor that a big boxy Nissan just beat the lap top of the Carrera GT on Top Gear track. Do you guys think it could possibly be a GT-R? Maybe the 'R' in GT-R stands for 'Ringer?' Apparently every GT-R out there is a ringer.
Well Nissan did supply the Top Gear test car. I'm still waiting for an independent test with production, private owned cars. Two members on this board have just driven a GT3 and a GTR back to back, both said they would take the GT3. I'm still on the fence, not hating at this point, just still waiting....
Clarkson said himself that "this one feels as if it's got a million hp" which he wasn't terribly impressed with it's acceleration vs. the bullet train. Which was then flown 9000 miles to run at Top Gear's test track....
Hmmm, So Clarkson drives a Red GT-R in the Race, a Gray GT-R at Fuji and a Black GT-R for the Top Lap. Nissan had to make 3 Ringers for those guys..... that's a lot of work. Edmunds Tested a Privately owned car and generated one of the fastest times yet. Also Privately owned cars are matching the "ringer" dyno that Motor Trend did. The Bell Curve is pretty clear on what the test results look like, a few haters point to the few slow times rather than the meat of the averages. I would be tempted to take the Porsche too, it's arguably nicer car. The Porsche shield commands a lot more respect than the Nissan Hamburger ;-) That said the GT-R is clearly a higher performance track car than the GT3. The GT3 is a fun ride though, I haven't driven a GT-R yet so I really wouldn't know how it scores on fun factor. understandable.
