Magazine Tests The GT-R At The Nurburging And Can't Come Close To Nissan's Claimed Time

Oh what a tangled web Nissan weaved, When first they practised to deceive!

:-(

This myth..."BUSTED!"

Everyone knows the GTR cannot beat the GT2 without breaking all laws of Physics! The GTR weighs more & is less powerful that the GT2, enough said!
(Nobody is disputing that the GTR is a great peice of kit or that it isn't an awesome machine)

The 'Nurburging' (sic). Is that anything like the Nurburgring 009?

i guess you are talking about the Nürburgring. you can also replace the ü with an ue, so Nuerburgring would be correct, too. everything else is wrong, trust me

This is so funny, who else but Turbosypder would give you this tip?

TurboSpyder- You sound a bit like me there...

Well, we always thought the agents were cut of the same cloth as Turbo et al.

"I'm just the messenger."

Nah, you're just an idiot who cannot accept the fact that a "porker" like the GT-R can outrun and outhandle a Porsche.

so, let's get it straight.
1st, GT-R was never meant to be a competitor to the GT2, ZR1 or ACR. It's competitor is Z06 and 911 turbo (Nissan mentioned that MANY times) for GT-2 and ZR1, i say wait for V-Spec.

2nd. this test proves GT-R on Bridegestone is 6 second slower than GT2, but says nothing about how GT-R performas on Dunlops with revised suspension (which is the car Nissan used to get their number)

3rd. if this article says anything about tires, it proves Nissan's statment that a Dunlop tire is about 5 second faster than bridgestone. this GT-R (a customer car) is about 5~6 second slower than GT2 (provided by Porsche).

4th. GT-R, according this test, was 17 second slower than claimed time, but GT2 was also 17 second slower than the claimed time. i failed to see how Porsche's engineer would claim 30+ seconds differnce btween GT-R and GT2.

5th. differnt tire and differnt driver would make a big differnce. give me an F1 car, i can guanentee you that i won't be as fast as any F2 car. does that mean F1 car is slower than a F2 car?

"if this article says anything about tires, it proves Nissan's statment that a Dunlop tire is about 5 second faster than bridgestone. this GT-R (a customer car) is about 5~6 second slower than GT2 (provided by Porsche)."

I suspect Porsche provided them Ringers to the test with boosted power , like some have been saying that Nissan was doing LOL .

So , according to the article Nissan Gtr on the Dunlops is as fast as Porsche 911 Gt2 on Michelin Sport Cups around the Nurburgring . Great result if you consider weight difference and that the GT2 is much more track oriented car than Gtr .

"GT-R, according this test, was 17 second slower than claimed time, but GT2 was also 17 second slower than the claimed time"

Exactly , Nissan claims 7:38 on the Bridgestones :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzBcZFWAi6Q

the gt2 was 5 seconds slower than the claimed time in the sport auto test, not even close to 15 seconds. where do you get your informations from?

http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktuell_U_sport/On-Line/hxcms_article_%20%20502725_14653.hbs

100octane :

http://www.autospies.com/news/Video-Porsche-911-GT2-s-7-32-run-at-the-Nurburgring-21040/

Have you even read the article ? In the article this is also written . 7:32 -> time for GT2 claimed by Porsche .
Next time do some search before posting .

LOL!

The GTR wasn't using the stickier Dunlops and most likely did not have the new suspension geometry which was used in the GTR that set the 7:29 laptime.

In any case, I still think the GT2 is faster than the GTR around the Ring. It's more powerful and 600lbs lighter. It's laptime of 7:31 was set on a public day so it's possible it could do better. It could equal or best the GTR's laptime. But the analysis in this article clearly shows that the GTR is the better handling car.

For those interested, here's a few more laptimes for both cars on different tracks. Enjoy!

http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php?page_id=compare&car1=4717b80e35715&car2=46a06c22ab41a&excludewet=true

By the way, the GT2 should really be comapred to the upcoming V-spec which will be out end of this year.

The Spec-V isn't out yet so it can't be compared to anything.

Forgot to mention that the fact that the base GTR is being compared to a lighter, more powerful and not to mention a lot more expensive car just goes to show how much the GTR has moved the game.

My stock Land Cruiser posted a time of 7:32 last year. hours:minutes I can't wait to put that K&N on there and post a 7:31.

The Horst von Saurma comment (in 2007) was made before the final suspension settings were approved and way before the current revised suspension geometry which was used in the 7:29 laptime.

oh huu.

if you'd been reading car magazines for the last 20 years, you'd know that all the german manufacturers (mercedes, porsche, bmw) are CONSISTENTLY conservative in their claims. this goes for performance figures as well as horsepower ratings. for example, my 335i has a manufacturers claim of 5.3 second 0-60. in magazines and in the real world, drivers consistently achieve sub-5 second times.

the japanese (lexus, nissan), on the other hand, typically state numbers that are impossible to duplicate except under idealized track conditions.

if you disagree, provide some evidence.

"They don't make stuff up like BMW's marketing dept."


This claim coming from a Lexus fan?

*Shakes head*

huu76-

Let us face the facts. Nissan are full of $#!t.

For that matter, it sounds like you smoke a lot. Lay off the drugs and get with the program.

sketchy, very sketchy.

this in embarrassing for nissan. 7:29 and 7:55 are worlds apart. not to mention, they've now discontinued the launch feature since the car can't handle it.

get a car to achieve something in a one-off situation like nissan's 7:29 time is not impressive. when they are able to CONSISTENTLY meet their claims on the track and on the road, the car will deserve respect.

They will surely lose face.

This stuff always makes me laugh.

The GT-R got 7:29. Deal with it.

Porsche acted like a baby with their public response. Deal with it.

Both cars are truly and utterly, awesome, but when testing like this you can never have truly duplicable results. No two drivers are the same. Course conditions change in a heartbeat. Through in all the "butterfly effect" jazz and you will really never be able to do a scientific apples to apples comparison.


What I find funny is that nobody posting here will ever drive a car anywhere near this level (let alone these actual cars), yet everyone feels a need to act like an expert or pull some irrelvant "industry commentary" out of their ass.

Even if the GT-R got a 6:29 it doesn't mean the Porsche is any less cool.

You fanboys suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Granted, you don't have to believe what Nissan says.

But, just because a magazine fails to dupilicate Nissan's stated time and then titles their article "The Truth" doesn't make it impossible either.

I could point you to many articles titled "The Truth" detailing how aliens abduct thousands of people a year. Would you believe those with such furvor as well?

I mean that most owners of these cars don't drive them at 10/10ths. So the likelihood that people posting here own or have experience driving cars like this, at that level of performance, is pretty slim to none.

most people dont even use 5/10 of their car but think they're using close to 9/10 cos they drive 120 on the highway, visit a drag strip twice a month and so on.

if those self crowned schuhmachers would do one drivers training they would punch themselves in the face and say: "oh my god, what an idiot i was"

Ok, if the Nissan's time is suspect (bearing in mind that it was on the Bridgestones and the old suspension geometry), I don't hear anyone complaining about the GT2's time of 7.49, that's like 18 secs slower than Porsche's claims. On the Dunlops, the GTR would have tied or beaten the GT2.

Regarding Horst and Sport Auto, his wiener schnitzel. Sport Auto loves Porsches. There's a test they just concluded at Nardo where, wait for it, the GT2 beat the LP 560 and the almighty Zr1 to 300 km/h. Lolz, they are real credible.

Perhaps Walter drove the GT2 (and the Porsche fanboys prostrate at the very mention of his name) and a blue haired Grandma drove the Zr1. Lolz

Real "winners" race in F1.

Rohrl has been an incredible driver for decades.

"Real "winners" race in F1."

force india would be proud

I believe Nissan did offer free driving lessons to other manufacturers on how to drive the GT-R. I wonder if Porsche took them up on that offer?

one thing that NOBODY is taking into consideration is the car to car variance. Nissan has already stated that new cars have less power and after their first service and software update the car is up to full power.
There have been some magazines which tested GTR's in the low 3 seconds range and then the same magazines achieved much higher (4+) times with different cars at different times.
This factor alone can be the reason for the time disparity, also keep in mind the Nissan test driver is an F1 ace who probably knows the car better than anybody, this could also be a large factor.
Hey I'm a Porsche owner (GT3) so I have no biase to the GTR but when I was at the track in Seattle there was a instructor driven GT3RS with full on slicks that had it's ass handed to it by a GTR stock! So if a GTR is seconds faster around a short track, it's not hard to believe how much faster it would be around the ring.
Porsche is just being cry babies, take it on the chin like a man and start building cars that can compete.

Look, I know all the GTR fanboys love the car, and I agree -- it's a performance heavyweight. But there is no way an instructor-driven GT3RS on slicks "had its ass handed to it" by a stock GTR, unless the instructor was on crack. What kind of course was it? It had to have been a short, tight course that allowed the GTR to use its traction and torque to its advantage. Who was driving the GTR -- Takuma Sato? If it wasn't a driver of top-drawer talent, I find this claim hard to believe.

Don't really get what the big deal is. Not everyone can replicate certain times, some drivers are better than others and road conditions come into play. Either way, I will still take the GT-R!!

I don't care if the GTR isn't as fast as the 7.29 posted by Nissan. Its still an incredible car. However, what i do have a problem with is a car company knowingly misleading with false claims in order to market a car. I'm not suggesting that this is what Nissan did, but with the huge discrepency in times, its certainly worth investigating.

Truth is known to be anti-japanese car.

Title should be:

" Magazine Tests The GT-R AND PORSCHE 911 GT2 At The Nurburging And BOTH Can't Come Close To Claimed Times "

And Nissan's driver T. Suzuki did officially 7:38 on the Bridgestones :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzBcZFWAi6Q

This is 17 sec faster than they say in the article , exactly the same situation as in the Porsche -> 7:49 in the artcle ( Michelin Sport Cup tires ) versus official 7:32 done by Walter Röhrl ( also Michelin Sport Cup tires ) . Maybe they both are lying about their Nurburgring lap times ?

2 comments:
1) DR is the most underrated auto magazine period. People just don't know about it.
2) This is a bigger deal than they let on. People at the leading edge of performance will pay a huge margin just to go a little bit faster. Close is no cigar to people spending $100K on a car. I think this is a serious blow to Nissan's presumed racing cred.

The evidence continues to pile up against Nissan, but only GTR fanbois ever believed that 'ring number. I did see my first GTR today and I can absolutely confirm it is just as ugly looking as in the magazines.

Porsche, need to suck it up, they got their ass beaten and beaten badly by a Nissan GT-R. Don't belief me, checkout the video below at youtube.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWcv7Zp0H78&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=qreQwTeaVWY&feature=channel

Please stop your crying and whinning. And you think the Nissan GT-R is scary because the much Fear, and Terror it cause in the Supercar segement. Just wait until the Nissan GT-R V-Spec come out and you will see what a Godzilla on Steroid can do.

Hi Folks, this is Steve Davies from DR, the magazine that performed this test. Donald Buffamanti from Autospies has asked if I can clarify any points you may have about this review.

I will try and response to each point on a seperate post, so please bear with me.

Firstly abcd, in answer to your point about the GT2 being a 'special' ringers version. It wasn't. Porsche had no idea we were taking their GT2 to the 'ring, we had already borrowed this same GT2 several times previously driving it first back in March '08 on a trip to the Isle of Man. We know it's history and also know that it is standard, that's why we borrowed it. It was the nearest we could get to a customer car.

The GT-R was also standard, we'd driven it before (when we compared it with the new 997.2 PDK, R8 and Aston V8) and we had recorded acceleration times and lap times of Silverstone circuit, so again we knew its history and could rely on it being a standard car.

Had we asked either Porsche or Nissan for a car to perform this test they would have said no, since they would understandably have wanted to ensure they were in the best condition possible. As it was both cars were in as 'normal' a condition as we could ensure, neither were fitted with fresh tyres but were as any owner would expect of their own cars.

The objective of this test was not to find the 'ultimate' lap time, since we would need to have thrown a manufacturers size budget at the test, book the circuit for several days and replaced tyres and brakes. Instead we were more interested with 'how' they went about setting their laps, this provides us (and you) with far more useful data to draw our own conclusions from.

As it was, the biggest difference between the cars was in straight line pace - just look at the speed difference along the Döttinger Höhe straight.

Both cars would have lapped faster in ideal conditions, and with Suzuki doing the driving the GT-R would surely have gone quicker still. But hopefully we've unravelled this story a little more clearly than had been possible beforehand.

DoctorD,

Nissan's initial claim for the GTR was 7:38 using Bridgestones. Your result for the GTR is 17 seconds behind that claim which is the same discrepancy between your result with the GT2 and Porche's claim.

jellybone, just to respond to your point. We've driven many GT-R's now and found that there are indeed variances in their performance. The white GT-R that we used for this test was representative of what we've found and we tested it at around 9 seconds (0-100mph). Incidentally this was on a par with the 997.2 C2S PDK that we tested at the same time.

We tested both GT2 and GT-R around our home circuit of Silverstone and both recorded a 2 minute 10 second lap (within one tenth of each other) - you can view the telemetry laps on DR - This was in dry and ideal conditions, and knowing how close they were on a GP circuit we were curious as to what kind of curve ball the Nurburgring would throw at their respective capabilities.

Nissan return to the ring next year when I assume they will be using an upgraded 2009 version of the GT-R. We look forward to being there and seeing what they achieve.

Thank you DoctorD!

We really appreciate your insider take on the whole story and knowledge of the products.

001

Amazing how the 997.2 S with PDK handily beat the GTR in your acceleration test. Can only imagine what the next generation turbos and GT2's will achieve

Okay, fanboys, I don't get it: the GT2, in their hands, was demonstrably quicker. The GT-R, in Suzuki's hands, was in another league. It is clearly down to driver as to which car is faster on a given day. These vehicles appear to be very evenly matched, with the corners belonging to the Nissan and the straights the territory of the Porsche.

Only one way to really settle it: Rohrl and Suzuki, same time, same place.

once again LMAO @ Porsche

blah, blah, blah.

blah...

I bet turbospyder has that Porsche win list saved on Microsoft Word

I will assume this article is from a reliable source. With that said it's to bad Nissan felt the need to boost the GTR numbers. The GTR is one heck of a car. Test have shown the GTR with lauch control engaged will sprint to 0-60 mph in 3.3 sec and 11.3 sec in the 1/4 mile. If you want proof go to youtube and check it out. It's safe to say that is very quick for a production car. Now the bad news I just read that Nissan will no longer offer launch control on the GTR because of all the problems with the system. With out launch control I'm thinking the GTR can sprint 0-60 mph in 3.5 secs. That's still very quick for a production car and Nissan should be proud! Now for more bad news the BMW 335i (4 door sedan) with JB3 ($700 upgrade)will sprint from 0-60 3.5 seconds and 11.8 in the 1/4 mile. OMG I could not believe a 4 door sedan could put up those kinda numbers. Want proof go to youtube. The 335i coupe is 1 tenth quicker. GT-R Premium starts at $71,900. The 335i starts at $42,000. The Porsche 911 Turbo starts at $120,000.

bmwm3

I own a 335i, tried 3 different ECU piggybacks, AA, Juicebox and Vishnu procede. First things first, a gtr tha does 0-60 in 3.3 with launch controll, WILL NOT DO THAT TIME in 3.5 without it. According to Nissan, Launch controll reduces the 0-60 time by about .6-.8 seconds. Your looking at times closer to the 4 second mark. Now back the bmw, No 335 does a 3.5 with just ECU piggyback. To get anywhere near the low 4 second mark, you need to have upipes, downpipes, free flowing exhaust and extensive tuning time on the dyno.

I think we both win!!

badgewhore

if you waste your time writing pointless comments, atleast make them funny.

I can't understand the fuss in arguing where the 27 sec.s came. Who is he to say he could possibly match the time?
Well, he's right to point the "ball" factor

Just look at F1 or any other track races. different drivers make different times on the same car.

In F1, fastest and slowest car in 5km+ circuit can span around 3 seconds a lap.
And we see how the leader overlap the backmarkers.

Such gap will grow drastically over 20km.

In other words, If a driver is a second faster each kilometer, over 20km, mathematically he could end up with 20secs gap!

Kids, please..

Why do you fight all the time? Why do you think that the GTR time is important or that GT2 time is the best ever to achieve.

Everything is written on the ice now, please wait for the NSX, then the fight for the second place will be important

CommonSense01

I've never driven the GTR so I was just estimating at the 0-60 mph time without launch control. If Nissan said that it's a 4 second car that's still very quick. And they should be proud. Porsche 911 are some of best performace cars' on the planet period. I'm not sure which Juice Box(JB) version your 335i has but I just purchased JB3 for my 2008 335i. I was able to do 0-60 seconds in 3.9 seconds with Steptronic, JB3, 95 Octane, and Nitto NT255R tires. All else stock. You're correct, if one wants to get their time down to 3.5 seconds you'll need other small mods costing about 1K. That's still less than both of these cars's. With that said running BMS Downpipe Fix v2 ($65) on public streets is illegal so remove them before leaving the track.

@ Turbospyder

thanks for the info, but im not into "race wins" when im checking out my cars...race wins, 0-60 times and tires are not what im looking for...wrong guy or company

Did everyone forget that nissan is building the V spec aka "Ultimate production race car". Yes we all know that there is a series two comin out for the GTR and S line and nismo edition that follow but the real deal is the V spec. Talk to me when the results are in Blk And White. When you can compare Nissan's Top of the line against Porshe's and Chevy's.

If you get your head out of your ass and do some research the first official run was on a cooler and damp day. There was water on the track. The second run was done on a dry day that was a little warmer. 9 sec faster run is very believable and can be done on a 13mile track with better conditions.

One thing I do not get from all of this GTR cant do 7:29 hype. All the magazines and Porsche have yet to show a video of their slower lap times.

Can we all stop arguing like pansy's and sit back and relax a little? Let's all reflect what you guys are arguing about. This is to all you fans of Porsche and Nissan. It's quite obvious you are all loyal and avid fans of both cars. Porsche for the ongoing iconic 911 with supreme build quality and fabulous weight distribution (with the rear engine placement) and the GT-R a big car that can zoom around utilitizing every bit of that 4 wheel drive system and the superb gear box.

So the question I'm asking. WHY ARE YOU ALL ARGUING? it's never going to end anyways. I test drove the 997 TT before I put deposit on my R8 order but the 0-60 time wasn't the selling point to me. So my point is, performance figures can only mean so much to an everyday auto consumer. You buy a Porsche for it's iconic styling with luxury amenities and outstanding performance and you buy a Nissan for it's performance and nothing more nothing less.

These two cars are so good in their own rights that the arguments will never end. Call a truce and get on with it. Anyone who gets to own either one of these cars for whatever reason is LUCKY!. Appreciate the technologies in today's automotive industry.

TurboSpyder - don't you tire of trolling?

sounds like porshe is paying magazines.. HAHAHA

HOW COME.. ALL OTHE MAGAZINES TESTED THE GTR AND ACCHIEVED TIMES SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE PORSCHES AND THIS GUY IS MISSING 29 seconds.. I can understand a 12 second gap or better an 8 second. but this is just marketting tricks.. or the guy with the test doesn't even have a clue of what hes doing. OR as I said before porsche tipped