Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Again your quoting an article and only using what you want to use and not the whole story.

Article you previously posted...
And then this is what your writing immediately following...

I think your the one not understanding the article or are interpreting it how you see fit. You can't just pick and chose bits and pieces of articles and ignore what you don't like. You either take an article for being accurate or disregard it for being junk.


Again this isn't unheard of in the industry, it's done quite often so your beating a dead horse here. Nissan apparently did it, as has GM and Ford and Toyota and whoever else you want to include. Hell the whole LS line of engines has been observed to be underrated...does that mean that all F-bodies ever produced weren't stock? Are we all buying souped up race cars and we don't know about it? NO we aren't, were all buying stock cars as proclaimed by the auto manufacturer. And the term STOCK has nothing to do with certified SAE numbers at all. Stock refers to the condition of a car as it leaves the factory floor in OEM trim.


There's a whole crap load of reasons, and am surprised that even you are bringing that up! Tony Swan ran a 12.8 at OLOA...what does that tell you? Driver mod, elevations, temperature, DA, gas used, track prep, engine wear, experience(as stated by the GTR owners who had only been the the track twice in his life) etc... you should really not be bitching about .1 of a second and 3mph when you know just as well as I do that cars drive differently in different climates and different tracks. There's a few guys that are running .5 - .7 of a second faster at a track down in texas (RVG) than they are in their own track in Odessa texas 10 hours away with only minor differences in set up.


GM actively monitors the message boards/forums and I'm sure have followed alot of the online debate between these two cars and others as well and were absolutely right to be as forthcoming as they were, you are absolutely right there!


Explain please, I'm not following.

dailydriver

Yet another ZR1 thread shot to ****!!

PLEASE, PLEASE oh merciful Octane, this one down!!!

Suaveat69

It is a sad story because another car magazine bites the dust and does a totally biased review by having a test driver that was and is currently heavily involved with Nissan:

Steve Millen's company web site:
http://www.stillen.com/
http://www.stillen.com/news.asp?id=86
If that is not a Nissan shop, then nothing is.

More: guess who instructed the journalists when Nissan presented the GTR at Reno-Fernley raceway in Nevada?

"Steve Millen, veteran race driver and instructor of journalists gathered to sample the 2009 Nissan GT-R"

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2...ud-be-dead-now

Yes, Road & Track has picked a very impartial driver, right...
Check out the lap times from the AFM round on the same Buttonwillow track config used for the GTR/Z06/911 test:

http://www.afmracing.org/downloads/r...8/bw-0308.html

Best times by the fastest riders were in the 1:45 - 1:46 range.

Still, 1:56 for the GTR is hauling butt (don't forget though that the car times were by a veteran track driver way more skilled than you or I).

Maybe, just maybe since he is on Nissans payroll he sandbaged just a tad on the Z on Willow.

Suaveat69

Of course no one can prove beyond a showdow of doubt anything unless they were there to be a witness.

What I am saying is do you see anybody or any magazine calling any kind of discrepencies on the Z's time? NO! Only a few people on here.

Do you see anybody or any magazines calling any kind of discepencies on the GTR time? Yes you do. That is the whole point. There are way to many "Buts" with the GTR time.

Now I have posted in the last thread that was deleted a verbatim quote from Jan himself. SO far we have this for the Z:

Tadge saying it does a standing start.
Jan saying it does a standing start ( I posted his entire quote from the article)
Shoemacker-Standing start
Webster-Standing start
The magazine that was there that day-Standing start.

On the other side, can anybody find any post from anyone, not Joe down at the bar told me this, but form any magazine or any other credible source?

Since the answwer is obviously no the the proof lies on your side to find at least one descepency with the Z's time.

Now if your opinion is that if there is no video then no time should be counted, then that would leave like 5 or times that you could say are offical for the ring. Hell even the CGT time is not an official time as noby seem it even run a timed lap.

See what iI mean:

Aparently Nissan used production tires, and the ring is NOW ran with a flying start and an incomplete lap. HOWEVER it's still unceratin what other modifications Nissan did with the car.

The previous aparently stock R33 GTR that did a 7:59 as tested by Autocar (for Nissan) was only able to achieve a best of 8:28 when again tested by Autocar (this time a production model). This car used standard tires and had the obvious stuff kept standard. Sneaky things like computer setting, boost levels, slight suspension changes, and removal of road restrictions including limiter were removed

PREVIOUS BOGUS NISSAN NURBURGRING TIME

The (Nissan GTR time of) 7:59 was set by Nissan test driver Dirk Schoysman, and that was the number subsequently used in Nissan literature promoting the GTR. Autocar did in fact test a Skyline rated at 277 hp in 1997 at the 'Ring, but recorded only an 8:28. There were 3 other cars tested in that session (Ruf CTR 2, Caterham 7 Superlight, and Porsche 996). Two months prior to that test, TopGear attempted to meet the Nissan figure using none other than Dirk Schoysman as one of their guest test drivers. The best he could do on that occasion was an 8:37 in a 350-hp VSpec GTR. 3 other cars were faster in that session: E36 M3 Evo, NSX, and F355.

Here is the video on a Suby running with a standing start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPXZGmfS9c

Now the ZR1. Again nobody knows with 100% certainty if it was bone stone.

What we know:

Tadge stated in both print and video that this car was a showroom car power and suspension wise.

GM-Laid out exactly how the car was to be tested and the layout of the car.

Now can you find anybody or any magazine that are calling into question the ZR1 tim at the Ring? If you can't again the ***** in your court to find some type of descepency for it's time, power ect.

So unless there are some sources calling BS or alluding to the fact the both Vettes were somehow over par witht he US spec cars then you are reaching.

Suaveat69

I never said factual. Nobody on here can really claim 100% either way unlike someone on here tried to do earlier. I just posted waht R&T or C&D said about the HP. There are also dynos from other sources that read hogher than waht Nissan calims. My opinion, and I have a quotes and dyno readings to go by, is htat in fact it is far higher thatn 480 HP that Nissan claims. Can I say this as a fact, no i can't. Just my humble opinion.

I am sure that this particular GTR can and did mangage to beat the stock Z's. But remmebr Tony has drove in OLOA 11 or 15 times. He has much more experience than any otehr Z driver. Again my opinion is htat the GTR is not stock on the HP rating for the Silver car in OLOA. By that token the non-stock C5Z with a less experienced driver handily beat the GTR.

The whole problem I have with the GTR and Nissan is this: If they would have just came out and said what the actual figures are then I would not say a word. Since I think they are way over the stock HP cliam, they want everybody to think that a car with less HP/TQ and more weight can kick the Z's ***. That's the problem I have. it's not grapes to grapes.

I don't thinks it a bad thing to underrate. I mean the LS1 f-bodies were. The GTR may be as much as 70-100 HP MORE than waht Nissan is claiming. That is not 20 or even 40 but may well be in that 70-100HP range depending drivetrain loss % and whos dyno you believe.

The difference here is that Nissan is claiming Xhp and it really might be a lot more. They are racing it when it might not be on the mark HP wise. Again if they would just come out and say that this car in OLOA has Xhp then this would all go away. That's like if you and I have roughly the same cars HP wise But I continually beat you when I should not be beating you then all of a sudden you find that I have a 100 shot when I told you I was making Xhp, just a little less than you. Since I did not volunteer that inof how would you feel?

I meant the silver car according to R&T is not US spec HP wise.

My point was that if you look at times for the Z, the magazines times were generally always slower that what people are doing on the track. If you look at the first tests of the GTR, the magazines times seemed to faster than what is currently being run. Just saying that the mag times for the Z were slower than track times in private hands. The GTR seems to be on the reverse end witht he first batch of cars.

Before Nissan started testing the GTR they went around and got GM testing procedures on the Z. Then they went out and did the exact opposite of what the Z did testing wise. They were trying to compare the GTR to the Z, although I never read they officially said this, when in fact this was a banana to orange comparison. Adain if you know the opponent and want to try and compare your times to them, then you should do the same exact testing.

BWright:

Prior to the GT-R's run no manufacturer had filmed one of theirs for proof. Not one. What Nissan did was to basically call everyone out for proof. Prior to that everyone had been performing Ring runs essentially on the honor system with no standardization. The variables of standing, rolling, partial and full laps not to mention aggregated segment times run on different days/times were all used/combined by various manufacturers such that essentially no two competing runs were really comparable. There is even an interview with Porsche test driver Walter Rohrl where he says that running the Ring with the CGT was so dangerous that he suggested Porsche make up a time.

So when GM waded into this standards morass and started running laps at the Ring they asked themselves what the most difficult and acceptable standard would be. They observed autocrosses where drivers perform a standing start and cover the entire course. This was accepted procedure amateur enthusiasts the world over were familiar with. So GM looked at the Ring and imagined that it was a giant autocross and that they would treat it accordingly since that was the standard real folks with road cars at countless autocrosses could readily relate to.

We have a standard now, more or less. Rolling starts are in now apparently for all. If we can get consensus on full/partial and videos for all claims (Nissan's run, again to their credit, is the reason for the sudden deluge of evidentiary videos - CTS-V, ZR1 top speed, ZR1 at the Ring) we will have a fairly level fight.
END

Publicity no matter good or bad is generally always better than none at all.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Not sure if anyone's posted or seen this so I thought I'd post it up. It's a vid of the 7:26 lap time of the ZR1. Pretty badass!!!
ZR1 Nurburgring Official 7:26.4 Record Corvette Ru

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I absolutely agree Suaveat69 that the GTR has been underrated no doubt by Nissan, by how much we don't know and it's all speculation by how much and different people will account for different amounts of drive train loss. So discussing the actual numbers would only be bench racing.
But I don't see that as meaning that the car isn't stock, it simply tells me that Nissan has done what many other car companies have done. Was it intentional, I don't know and can only make a guess at that, but from what I understand car manufacturer's do not have any say in the new SAE testing procedures, or at least not as much as they used to. Could it be that the numbers might of been skewed by the new testing format and procedures? Speculation only but I'm not sure if the engine dyno's used for these testing procedures are capable of creating artificial load such as a dynojet can but we're dealing with turbo's here and turbo's love load. Maybe someone who knows more can chime in on the type of dyno's that they use. In any case I don't pretend to know why the numbers are below advertised but it only benefits the consumer in the end I'm sure we can agree.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I agree that Tony has probably had more experience in OLOA than possibly a lot of the other drivers (I don't know who they all are so can't say for sure) but also remember that he was not perfect by any means and even admitted that he made a huge blunder in the Autocross portion of OLOA.

"When it comes to tight corners, nothing rivals an autocross, a tortuous, twisting time trial normally set up in large parking areas and marked by cones. How would the GT-R fare in this test? I never learned the answer to that question. This particular course essentially consisted of two sections separated by about 75 yards of open asphalt with no cones or readily visible references to connect the first to the second. There was no recon run and no second chance. One run, do or die. I am not an autocrosser. When I emerged from the first section, I had no more idea where to go next than if I’d been in a white-out snowstorm on a frozen lake. Lost, depressed, and alone, I gave up.
It turned out I was not alone. At least 24 other competitors suffered the same disconnect in midcourse. Realizing the course was flawed, particularly for inexperienced autocrossers, the organizers sought to make a compensatory arrangement—minimal points for the lost Lappers.
But those who finished the autocross successfully objected strenuously to this proposal. Rules are rules, said they. And the rules-are-rules lobby, not unreasonably, prevailed. Had I managed to find my way from the first section to the second, and scored a midpack time—let’s say 29th—the GT-R would have accrued 220 more points and finished seventh overall, despite a so-so finish in the final skidpad event."



I'm not gonna sit here and claim that the GTR finished 7th overall or should of, because it didn't. It finished 11th and that's that. But Tony Swan wasn't as good as he could have been in a few of the exercises despite his experience but on a whole that's racing.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I'm not aware of any information regarding Nissan attempting to compare the GTR to the Z06 during ring trials. I do know that they did bring with them a Porsche 911 Turbo wherever they went and that one is the primary car that the GTR was meant to upstage, and I think any other cars taken out in the process was a bonus for them.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Probably not the right thread for this but check out the machine used to torque down the head bolts on the LS9!

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...LS9_168134.htm

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Cool vid.

VA2001SS

Great video of the run from the cockpit!

TNTramair

iTrader: (15)

this was interesting:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Z...ing_170827.htm

Tavarez

lol somehow the magical GTR is almost as fast on the straights