Yezzir...

You know what?

I think someone should grab a production-spec model of the Z06, ACR, 911 GT2, and GTR, and then run them through a series of tests of a variety of different road courses with disinterested but professional drivers... Moreover, the whole test should be overseen by an independent third party to get to the bottom of how these cars stock up against each other without manufacturer bias... That would be perfect...














Oh wait!

too late!

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6939

 

Road and Track said it well, the gtr can defy physics, the z06 "will" kill you, the acr is a proven track performer, and the lambo isn't just a pretty face.
-Joel

 

LOL...your relentless!

The (european) magazine CAR had an article 5 months ago where a guy in england couldn't wait to get his GTR so he bought a japanese version and flew it to england. He let the Magazine test the GTR vs a M3, R8, and a Porsche turbo and I'd have to look back through the article but I think the GTR beat all of them. I think the order was GTR, R8, 911 and M3. I'd have to go back and look at it. But that's another example of a production model performing as it was intended to do. I could find a link if someone's interested.

 

I love that line. It won't matter how fast your car is, if you can't get it around the track.

 

Spoolin, I get what your saying but if they don't come out and say "we're running cut slicks"... what else could they be doing? there were pics that hinted at cut slicks and I think in result they admitted it to everyone. But if they are trying to get by on cut slicks, why not bump the boost up a little? why not run on a higher octane? All I am saying, and porsche is saying for that matter, is there are way too many unknown variables that suggest that car can't run a 7:29 and the evidence we do have (car's weight, "advertised HP', tires,etc) confirms that. We don't have all these unknowns with the ACR, ZR1, Zo6, GT2, GT3, etc...

 

I called it. Look at my previous posts.

The GTR sucks.

If it could do more than it was claimed to be able to do, then it wouldn't suck. But, it doesn't. They lied and cheated. The truth is always brought to light.

 

Those are all good questions that bring up valid issues but reading your post got me thinking...If you were nissan and spent xx amount of $$ on re-developing the flagship car, how would you go about creating the biggest buzz in the industry? What if they did it on purpose?
I know it sounds ridiculous but look at what a stir the GTR has made since it's introduction. I mean the LS-F or whatever it's called (the newest supra) is so low key most people don't realize it's made some runs at the Nuremberg with quite impressive numbers.
A lack of hype for any car is just as much of a sale's kill as is a shitty product. I mean look at what happened to the GTO and what's going on with the G8. I think most of us will agree those cars are very well done and perform incredible for their price but look at how bad they have done sales wise. Reason being, no hype, no word of mouth, and little advertising. I can't help but think that nissan might of been vague and misleading on purpose in order to spark an interest online, with publications and among enthusiasts of all types in order to promote conflict and debate and most importantly notoriety. I mean the fact that porsche did this test and published results is a form of advertising in itself, albeit in negative light, the name is still being brought up and causing stirs.
Just a thought, figured it made sense but I agree that the ACR, ZR1, Zo6, GT2, GT3, etc... have far fewer unknowns than the GTR, so either Nissan is pure genius in their marketing strategy or...

 

Wow, did you even take a look at the R&T test? Yeah, the car sucks... Never mind that it outperforms the C6 Z06 on a short road course, a long road course, an autocross, and even an oval.

If what you "called" is that the GTR 'Ring run was baloney, then you're probably right.

If what you "called" is that the car sucks, then you're so dead-nuts wrong it's funny. What they claimed they could do (beat the Porsche turbos) they have DONE so far in every independent test... Do some reading pal, the car sucks, why, because you say so? lol, maybe, but it sure ain't because of facts.

Funny how so many people said not to put too much stake in the Nurburgring lap times before, and now that there is more evidence the 'Ring time is phony people are acting like it's such an important test that we need to know whether Nissan cheated on it or not. lol, Which is it? Important or not?






Edit: Anyway, why don't some of the Nissan haters address the independent tests as strongly as they are addressing this 'Ring test? Ahhh... Because these results favor their previously rationalized positions, and the others don't fall in neatly... What bias. An enthusiast observes ALL the results first and THEN arrives at a position, Nissan sucking or not.

"Nissan cheated on the 'Ring OMG. Now the numbers are false on such an important test like this! Oh NOES!"

Okay, did they cheat on the R&T test too? 'Cause they smoked alot of cars except the ACR pretty much. Ahhh... This INDEPENDENT series of tests must not be as important. LOL

 

The 'independant' tests are as suspect as the 'ring times are now. The GTR's used in your 'independant' tests were provided by Nissan, who has been proven by a major and respected automaker to have not been completely truthfull in their testing. If Nissan were to lie about their 'ring times, what would stop them from lying about the condition of their preproduction test models? If memory serves me right, this hasnt been the first time Nissan has been caught fudging the numbers with a GTR.

If you think about it, now that there is a credible source of information questioning the true potential of the GTR, ANY testing or review not done with a dealer purchased, showroom stock,U.S. spec GTR holds absolutely no weight. Your 'independant' tests (i.e. car rag reviews) are completely worthless due to the fact that the cheaters (Nissan) provided a possibly tainted test subject. As an enthusiast reviewing ALL the results and information, the b.s. flag has been raised on any and all results from any vehicle in any setting that has been or will be provided by Nissan.

If you don't like it, go ask Nissan why they cheated, because they just destroyed their own credibility.

So Nissan gets caught cheating on the ring, and the fanboys can't admit the possibility of Nissan cheating in other scenarios. What bias.

 

Thanks for addressing this BTW.

That is a valid opinion.

How did Porsche get their GTR?

Nissan can lie about the condition of the car, true... Do you have anything more than speculation though?

Also, would R&T lie about the car's lap times or purposely skew their efforts for each car to produce a certain result FOR the GTR? If so, couldn't Porsche have done the same AGAINST the GTR?

Personally, I do not believe R&T would test a tweaked GTR KNOWINGLY... I believe them to be credible...

Two cases here ONLY in my opinion:

A. They honestly tested a tweaked GTR unbeknownst.

B. They honestly tested a production-spec GTR.

In either case, to their knowledge, I believe they felt they tested a production-spec GTR.

If Nissan is discovered to have lied to them, shame on Nissan.

But what if they're not? You'd remain skeptical FOREVER? The possibility of the R&T GTR being legit has to at least be considered here. We can't be THAT paranoid.

By your own logic, then there is NO TEST (including the Porsche one since they are not an "indifferent" tester), including the independent tests since they have been possibly tainted by Nissan providing tweaked vehicles, good enough right now...

BUT, until an independent test occurs with those conditions, we can't say what cars are faster than it

-OR-

what cars are slower than it.

See, this kind of logic makes it very difficult, so you have to pick carefully.

lol, no... You're biased if the R&T tests aren't good enough, but then the Porsche ones are, plain and simple.

I, PERSONALLY, happen to accept BOTH, right now... For now.

 

Nissan answers:

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=57410&vf=12

 

Im still not sure what to think of the situation. But I did come across this vid of a GTR vs 996 GT3 around the ring.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=j8NwaSf4TTo

 

i wonder if porsche would agree to a rematch... that would be interesting

 

Thats an answer but I don't think it will settle the issue. Until Nissan agrees to an independent test at the ring supervised by an unbiased party the question will remain and I think people will trust Porsche's credibility over Nissan's. It may not be right or fair but thats the way it is.

 

Well, that's what I believe the R&T tests were, except not on the Nurburgring but on other tracks instead... Apparently, such a test wouln't be good enough either unless we add the condition that it must be a recently purchased GTR straight from the dealer for some like beerwhiskeyjoe...

I agree that Porsche's credibility is above Nissan's, but I also value R&T's.

Good articles btw.

 

I believe they bought a USspec model and had it sent over to Germany, but i have no idea where R&T got theirs. The link with nissans says the gtr comes with two different tire options, and that one will track better than the other. But my question is if Porsche used the other brand of tire that doesn't track so well, is that enough of a differnce to not be able to pull off near the 7:29 time? The same Porsche engineer drove the 911 Turbo to a 7:38 and the GT2 to a 7:34, so its not like hes a noob to the track. But of course we can't forget that knowing the car is almost as/more important than knowing the course. If you don't know the capabilites or even the limits of the car, thenyou will never be able to push it to what it can handle. Obviously this is what helps nissan with the months of testing, they know what their car can do.
-Joel

 

COOL! (and more than 'fair enough' )

 

Well, if Nissan cheated once what makes you think they wouldn't do it again, or were all these test done with cars right out the dealership?

 

Well thats the thing with tests like these performed by R&T, Motor Trend, etc. are all these cars from the manufacturers? Or do many of these cars belong to people that allow the magazines to use them?
-Joel

 

I think the R&T editors would notice if the Nissan had cut racing slicks or anything of that sort...

I, for the most part, trust most of R&T's tests (even if they are a car magazine )