Top Gear: GTR's time

The GTR (since 1989) is old news to Australia(and of course Japan): http://autospeed.com/cms/A_107753/article.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pn_n1Jc3uzE 1992 champion bathurst
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KPY7cBhPnmQ Best Motoring supercar race at Suzuka: F50 vs F40 vs Diablo vs Skyline GT-R vs GT3 vs F355 vs GT2 vs 911 Turbo

The ATTESSA 4WD system was originally developed for this car back in 1984: http://www.zhome.com/History/MID-4.htm
A midengine AWD "supercar" by Nissan, which decided to put it into the Skyline GTR instead. I wonder what would have happened to the Ferrari lineup if Nissan had decided to actually put the Mid-4 into production, such as how Ferrari had to up their reliability to compete with the new crop of Japanese "supercars" like the NSX.

 

To correct Jimmyb, the GTR was NOT faster than the Enzo around the track. Enzo did it in 1:19 and the GTR did it in 1:19.7.

I seem to recall RoyCats saying the LP640 didn't dyno much more than a regular Murcie. Nissan may have underrated the hp as well, which is nothing new. Cars like the F50 don't dyno well either.

Did the 997TT have a regular slushbox or a manual transmission (manual trans would've been slower)? Its engine location is probably the thing that hurts it the most. Way too easy to cause oversteer whereas the GTR's is a front midship design. The Cayman has an idle engine location, but it is underpowered compared to the two or else it would shine there. I think the GTR only weighs about 300-350 lbs more than a 997TT with the same power.

 

LP640 and the Murci....
the V12 is still built in-house in Santa-Agata by Lamborghini. Lamborghini do not have the same level of quality control when building an engine as Audi do when building the V10. Eeach engine is different... some making more power, some making less power. By and large, the 640's will have more measurable power then Murcie's.... but not all of them if, particularly if the Murcielago engine was individually "stronger."

 

No, but you can apply them properly.

The Nur is easy to Explain. Nissan isn't gaming the system, Nissan, cares about this track, and has been using it to tune Skylines for 4 generations....long before t was vogue to do so. In many way's Nissan's obsession with the ring is what made it so well known outside of Europe. The GT-R is the right tool for the job, and Nissan has spent the last 2 years applying 15 years of learning from the Nur. If Nissan spent 15 years building it's best car for Silverstone, you would see the same thing.

Nissan isn't special here, they're focused. I'm sure that we would see the same from any other manufacturer that was obsessed with a Goal. Heck, we saw Ford do this in the 1960's when a lowly American brand decided they would focus all their resources on beating Ferrari at Le Mans. And they did.

BTW
New Test results! The King is Dead, Long live the King....the Viper ACR takes em all.
http://www.gtrblog.com/media/blogs/gtrblog/RoadAndTrack/road-and-track-results.gif

 

BTW SSC is not a Kit car company. They are a botique manufacturer yes, but you cannot order their car as a "kit"

 

I thought the 997tt Auto was only faster in a straight line? I would still think you would want to ditch that torque converter if you're going to take it around any sort of course?

 

You are correct, the torque converter would hinder road course times.

 

I forgot to add that the GTR's transmission is placed over the rear axle helping weight distribution whereas the 997TT obviously has everything in the back. The GTR's awd system is in rwd mode most of the time. Up to 50% of the power is transferred to the front when needed. Is the 997TT full time awd or is it like the GTR's?

 

I've been told the 997tt only has light amount (maybe 10% or so) going up front to help prevent snap oversteer. I don't honestly know that much about it though so I will defer to a Porsche expert, but the 996/997tt owners I know tend to ditch the AWD first thing calling it more of a heavy safety feature.

 

996 and 997 AWD components only add an extra 130ish lb these days.

Additionally, the 997 Turbo has a built in "overboost" mode that will ad 50 torques, and about 35 hp to the straight line equasion for up to 30 seconds at a time

 

I take it it's not impossible Nissan might have an 'overboost' mode in the GT-R during extended WOT without lateral G load? In fact doesn't the GT-R GPS tell the car whether or not the car is on a track? Maybe dynoing the GT-R on a race track in R-mode will yield more boost, and thus more power. Ever wonder why Nissan mandates you take the car into service after a track day for performance evaluation?

 

All new cars in Japan are limited to 112 mph....no such governors for worldwide exported GTR's, or if there are, it'll be a higher limit.

 

I love how the hateraid crowd has changed their tune from "NISSAN IS LYING AND THE CAR IS A UNICORN OF FANTASY!!" to: "umm, maybe its faster since on a cool day at certain elevation, and if its transmission case has .005 millimeter more density... and the porsche is obviously hindered due to its _______."

 

I don't hate it, but based on Nissan's history, and misc. press, there is a lot of questions about the ligitimacy of the performance the GTR has "shown"

I haven't changed my tune, and, unfortunately, it is the ugliest sportscar available to buy today.

 

I wounder if like other Japanese sports cars the GTR's 180km/h limit can be removed by fitting a speed cut defender-hks makes such an item. Costs only about 100 dollars to get one for the Supra

 

You're beginning to sound like sour grapes guy on a Ricer or Mustang forum. Just because it does not fit your paradigm of what makes sense you bash it. Just like those guys yell about how their souped up cars can be a "Fur-are-E" doesnt change what the Ferrari is. The GTR is a staggering achievement that embarrases 95% of performance cars on the market and is redefigning the segment. You say its ugly, I think it looks menacing.

 

Will void warranty. Thankfully, no such limiter in the states.

 

Well it's his opinion, I tend to agree, the GTR isn't a nice looking Asian design like the Supra or NSX was.
And while the performance is great, somebodies telling a fib about something....the numbers just don't add up.

 

You may be sticking to your story but its getting softer...
Perhaps we should post the definition of Paradigm:

"philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated." (Merrium Webster)

I'll say it again, just because it doesn't fit in your box does not give you the footing to call Nissan cheats and the GTR a fake.

 

The only reason the Ultima GTR's time isnt official is because Top Gear refuses to drive the car around their track. They were offered the car to drive many times but refused. In the end the manufacturer had no other options but to drive it themselves, with a driver less capable and experienced around the track than the almighty Stig.

 

Yet you are quick to discredit press that shows that Nissan in fact, cannot break the mold of physics.

Press: having trouble getting accurate dyno results, measured at wheels, and hubs. -edmunds
Press: 7:29 car was running 693 hp, which will be unavailable to the public - BMW rag ss posted
Press: GTR isn't fun, and understeers far too much for track use- 5th gear
Corner-Carver's outcry: Millen is not the guy to use in a comparo test. I respect those guys more than any Journalist on the web, more then out of the said horses mouth, and more than internet keyboard jockies. those guys are the real deal.
Press: trap speeds are all over the map; far more then explaining away with things that are well documented, like temperature, humidity, barometric pressure.
NS lap time is far too low, how gullible does Nissan think the automotive enthusiast is? How gullible do the automotive press think we are?
Nissan claim 10% driveline loss, refer to above
Nissan have not yet claimed an "overboost" mode that happens on the track, or in specific situations... etc.
Some cars have "much more power" than others. Remember, we aren't dealing with an extreme high-boost exotic engine, like the Koenigsegg, Veyron, Vector, etc. etc. where slight manufacturing differences are going to equate to 10% differences in power. (FYI, Veyrons make a minimum of 1001 hp, however, I know of at least one with just over 1100. Most are between 1050 and 1080) Vector W8's made a guarenteed 625 hp, however, numerous cars are making more (only one dyno'd @ around 625, the most powerful dyno'd over 750 hp).

I would expect that Nissan are underrating the power. I'd expect that the car makes 500-530 hp However, thanks to an arab owner of both cars, we see that the GTR cannot escape the power/weight ratio laws, and is slower then a stock (heavier optioned) C6 Z06 from both a roll, and from a hard standing-start launch.

You said for yourself cannot help us understand it. So, why is it you are defending it so adamantly? Sounds like fanboyism/ sheople...

 

But then the implication is that Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche and lots of other manufactuers do not know how to apply the laws properly. Also, that line you wrote is from the Nissan engineers - and I again am not really buying that. To take a 3900lb car with 480hp and make it faster around a track than the 430 Scuderia, Carrera GT and other cars like that, is such a huge difference from what one would expect, that I would think such a wundercar would have all sorts of technical articles written about the genius that went into the car.

I was perusing the Lambo site and there was an article in some magazine "Quattroporte" or something that sounds like that - the GTS was beaten handily in the 1/4, in braking, and it was something like 3-4 seconds slower around the track. The other cars in the article that it was tested against were the 430 Scuderia, Lambo LP560 and Porsche GT3. I believe Alain Prost was driving although I could be mistaken on that. Why would the GTR be 4 seconds slower on their track on a 1:19 lap whereas the difference is greater than that in the GTR's favor on other tracks.

I have been around long enough to remember when cars like the McLaren F1, F40, BMW M5, M3, many AMG Benz's and lots of other cars came out. I don't ever recall a car coming out and being as much faster than it "should" be than the GTR. And those other cars are not underengineered.

So whats up with the GTR? Again, I don't know - but I definitely notice that the people who want to say it *is* all that, cherry pick the test results they put out there as the actual results.

 

Here is the text of the article I referenced above "quattroroute" magazine.

Quattroruote 08/08
Ferrari 430 Scuderia
Lamborghini LP560-4
Nissan GT-R (Japan specs, right drive)
Porsche 997 GT2

Acceleration Kph (Scud, LP560, GT-R, GT2)
0-60: 2.01s - 1.81s - 1.89s - 1.82s
0-100: 3.76s - 3.65s - 3.87s - 3.87s
0-160: 7.76s - 7.36s - 8.47s - 7.84s
0-200: 11.64s - 11.09s - 13.15s - 12.04s
0-240: 17.52s - 16.53s - 20.16s - 18.08s

Scuderia: 11.65s @ 200.0 Kph - 20.99s @ 254.8 Kph
LP560: 11.46s @ 203.7 Kph - 20.62s @ 262.7 Kph
GT-R: 11.94s @ 191.1 Kph - 21.68s @ 246.1 Kph
GT2: 11.72 @ 196.9 Kph - 21.12s @ 255.4 Kph

Brakes 200-0 Kph
Scuderia: 136.2m -1.16g
LP560: 136.1m -1.16g
GT-R: 139.8m -1.12g
GT2: 138.8 -1.13g

Handling
1’15”375 - 122.27 Kph - Ferrari 430 Scuderia
1’15”714 - 121.72 Kph - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4
1’17”600 - 118.76 Kph - Nissan GT-R
1’15”528 - 122.07 Kph - Porsche 997 GT2

ski-pad (R=55m)
Scuderia: 1.15g
LP560: 1.11g
GT-R: 1.06g
GT2: 1.15g



The GT-R loses in every single category. It's slower in acceleration to 60, 100, 200 kph. It brakes in the longest distance, pulls the worst skidpad numbers, and is 2.3 seconds slower around the track than the Ferrari Scuderia 430.

Car and Driver got similar results with the GT-R being handily beaten in their tests.

Top gear has the GT-R faster than the Zonda, Carrera GT and blowing away the 430 Scuderia.



It just doesn't add up. It seems there is a HUGE variation in the performance of the GT-R. I've never seen such a huge variance in the tested performance of a car. Sure, with cars like the Viper and Corvette, one magazine runs 12.2@118mph and another is 11.9@121mph... but I've never seen 10-14mph differences in trap speed and a car being 3-4 seconds quicker around one track and 2-3 seconds slower around another track.

It just doesn't add up.

People believe what they want to. The GTR fanboi's are parroting the "they just applied physics correctly" and "it has a lot of technology" and "you just don't want to believe it" and "LOLZ you are teh haterz!!! LOL" and all that.

But to a car guy, something is fishy - something doesn't add up.

I have a hunch the GT-R press cars may be vastly outperforming the consumer cars. Not necessarily part of a conspiracy by Nissan, but test mule cars are, well, for testing. Maybe the boost was cranked up? Maybe there is other stuff going on? Who knows.

I think what I've been saying before still holds up - we will know once we start seeing head-to-head same track/same day tests between these cars with US-spec production cars. Not press cars, not pre-production cars, not test mules, not Japan spec cars, just the same cars you can get off the lot.

And once those tests happen, we shall see the real performance of the car.

If it's as fast as they say - great! I will enjoy mine even more. If it's not, then at least I want to know.

 

That is a VERY well respected magazine.

And I agree, the differences between the magazines for a car that "drives itself" makes no sense. 10-14 mph in trap speed is beyond huge. But the fanboys still say we're the ones in the wrong....

I just want the truth and proof from lot/customer cars.

 

In the '60s you could get a vette with 400 horsepower. In the 80's you got something like 250 if you were lucky. It took until 2002 to get back up into the 400's again.

Until recently you couldn't get a regular 911 with 300 horsepower. That's pathetic. Same for the BMW M3 and so many other cars.

Did everyone simply forget how to make power? Has it all been gradually re-learned again? I don't think so. And that's just horsepower.

For years car companies have been giving us the status quo, with a couple little tweaks and only bumping up the features and power a tad here and a tad there to keep up with the competition. Why lay everything out on the table right now when you can keep spoon feeding the consumers little by little?

Sure, increases in computer technology and tire design and such have come along a lot in recent years, but that's not the reason why we all of a sudden have cars with balls again.