[EmmettBrown]

GTR is definitely a bang for the buck (IMO, that's where it really wins) but if i had $140k to blow, 997.2tt or GTR? HMMMMM

[ponch_ki]

hmmm another GTR Nurburging time thread....

ever since this the GTR came up I have never tried posting in one. But with the new shocking 7:20 time I just had to ask..:

Has any 3rd party/driver ever come close to Nissan's times?

[MikeyV]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

I can't speak for other Porsche owners, but the only point I've put forth is that the GTR, R32-35, has never won a major cup against the competitors it says "it's beating" at the Ring. It's like a basketball team of top stars who score 32 points a game, but haven't won a championship. Ferrari is who they are right now because of what they've managed to accomplish by winning major races. So is Porsche, Corvette, and others. Those brands have decades of Cup wins that underscore their motorsport lineage, and I can't think of a single major cup win for the GTR and all of its variants. The R33 did compete in LeMans, but never scored higher than 10th place.

Nissan Skyline GTR's won the Australian Touring Car Championship 3 times in a row, won the Bathurst 1000 twice, dominated the Japanese Touring Car Championship for year, to say the GTR has no racing heritage is just rubbish.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

Nissan Skyline GTR's won the Australian Touring Car Championship 3 times in a row, won the Bathurst 1000 twice, dominated the Japanese Touring Car Championship for year, to say the GTR has no racing heritage is just rubbish.

Okay, believe what you want. If you think the "Australian Touring Car Championship" is a big cup race, nothing I say is going to change your mind. However according to your own criteria, the Ford Sierra, which duplicated the same feat the GTR did, 1 year before, also has a great racing heritage. Maybe you and I just have different standards on what we consider a great racing heritage.

Also I think it's quite telling that the R35, in its 4th year of production, has yet to be fielded in a major cup race against its contemporaries in the FIA GT.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by m3manila

Has any 3rd party/driver ever come close to Nissan's times?

The closest I've seen has been Horst von Saurma and he was something like 10 seconds off Nissan's 7:24 time while driving a 2012 model (the supposedly faster/redone vehicle). The 7:24 time was supposedly done with the "older, slower" model. Horst could only manage a 7:38 with the older/slower model (a 2009 variant).

[graider]

Originally Posted by m3manila

hmmm another GTR Nurburging time thread....

ever since this the GTR came up I have never tried posting in one. But with the new shocking 7:20 time I just had to ask..:

Has any 3rd party/driver ever come close to Nissan's times?

you should also ask has anyone come close to the 911 turbo claimed time.

here is some food for thought.
SportAuto test by same driver:
Nissan claimed 7:26, SportAuto HvS acheived 7:38 - difference of 12 secs
Porsche claimed 7:38 for the 997 Turbo, HvS got a 7:54 - difference of 16secs
The new 2012 GT-R Nissan claimed 7:20 (7:24 in semi-wet) - HvS acheived 7:34 - difference of 14secs.

there is no way HvS can achive 7:22' for the ACR as claimed unless he put hundreds of laps. But this should give you a general idea that nissan claim is not BS at all, just that many doubters don't believe nissan can be that fast. it's funny because no one ever doubt porsche claim, but GTR. LOL

[TK-421]

How could the numbers you posted *not* show how Nissan's claims are BS?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

I think this argument is getting kind of long in the tooth, but:

1) There is a FIA GT - GTR entry using a V8. But that's besides the point, you can go back to the R32-R34 and still not find a major win in any of the cups I mentioned.

2) The Porsche 911 GT3 RSR competes in the ALMS GT2 class.

1.) Have you actually read the rules and regulations for these racing series? do they allow AWD? Turbos? Active differentials? DCT? the very fact that the GT-R in FIA GT uses a V8 tells you everything you need to know about why the GT-R doesnt race...

2.) and how many racing series does the 911 Turbo race in? 911 GT2?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Okay, believe what you want. If you think the "Australian Touring Car Championship" is a big cup race, nothing I say is going to change your mind. However according to your own criteria, the Ford Sierra, which duplicated the same feat the GTR did, 1 year before, also has a great racing heritage. Maybe you and I just have different standards on what we consider a great racing heritage.

Also I think it's quite telling that the R35, in its 4th year of production, has yet to be fielded in a major cup race against its contemporaries in the FIA GT.

Dude, read the damn rules!!!

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/98BB19AD421695DEC125774C002CF463/$FILE/257%20(10-11).pdf

electronic control of drivetrain is prohibited. AWD would therefore be useless without electronic control.

you do have different standards. the one where everything euro is better...

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by madfast

2.) and how many racing series does the 911 Turbo race in? 911 GT2?

This is pointless logic, as all 911's share the same chassis, and the Turbo, GT3 and GT2 RS all share the same block. If you're going to try to cut it that way, which GT-R version has a racing heritage, the stock one, the Spec V or the Spec M?

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

This is pointless logic, as all 911's share the same chassis, and the Turbo, GT3 and GT2 RS all share the same block. If you're going to try to cut it that way, which GT-R version has a racing heritage, the stock one, the Spec V or the Spec M?

LOL no, just no.

GT3 = NA RWD
Turbo = FI AWD
GT2 = FI RWD

which one does the GT-R most resemble? is it the one that is universally raced? No? case closed...

the GT-R is closer to a group b rally car than F1 so why does everyone want it to fit in the cookie cutter euro rules that are geared towards NA RWD?

[graider]

Originally Posted by TK-421

How could the numbers you posted *not* show how Nissan's claims are BS?

then, porsche is even more BS.
Porsche claimed 7:38 for the 997 Turbo, HvS got a 7:54 - difference of 16secs

what i'm saying is the time are not BS in all these car, it just that HvS is not used to these car as those factory test drivers who knew the car inside out, done thousand of laps on them, and know how to get every last second out of their own car.

[graider]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

This is pointless logic, as all 911's share the same chassis, and the Turbo, GT3 and GT2 RS all share the same block. If you're going to try to cut it that way, which GT-R version has a racing heritage, the stock one, the Spec V or the Spec M?

um...that just doesn't make sense. sure they all look the same, but the underlying technology/layout aren't.

again i just want to point out that racing has nothing to do with street car. if you are buying a car becuase it has so many racing history or win so much race, then that is just sad.

case in point, the m3 is fat compare to the 911 gt3 on the street and the performance is not even close ok, but in race trim (m3 gt2 alms), it is pretty much on par with the gt3 race car.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by madfast

1.) the very fact that the GT-R in FIA GT uses a V8 tells you everything you need to know about why the GT-R doesnt race...

Why doesn't it race?

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

This is pointless logic, as all 911's share the same chassis, and the Turbo, GT3 and GT2 RS all share the same block. If you're going to try to cut it that way, which GT-R version has a racing heritage, the stock one, the Spec V or the Spec M?

Exactly. The 997 chassis is tried and race tested in many different trims. The R35 isn't. I'm not sure how this is even an argument.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by madfast

LOL no, just no.

GT3 = NA RWD
Turbo = FI AWD
GT2 = FI RWD

which one does the GT-R most resemble? is it the one that is universally raced? No? case closed...

the GT-R is closer to a group b rally car than F1 so why does everyone want it to fit in the cookie cutter euro rules that are geared towards NA RWD?

Read my actual post, the chassis of all three are identical. Sure, they have different options, but the chassis is race proven. No, they don't race an awd version as FIA doesn't allow awd in endurance classes. The simple fact is that the GT-R wasn't meant for racing, at least internationally sanctioned, endurance racing.

Does that make it a bad car? Of course not. But it does make it fundamentally different (and in the eyes of many, myself included inferior) to the 911. For the record, the lack of sanctioned racing heritage for the Cayman actually influences my opinion of that car too.

Further, Nissan actually did well with the old 300Z, and the Z continues to be an odd fit in the Nissan line up, not as capable as the GT-R, but with more heritage and racing history.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Why doesn't it race?

the FIA GT GT-R is V8 powered, 6 speed, and RWD. it is NOTHING like the street car. why would they do all that if the V6TT, DCT, AWD street version was allowed?

as i said, these things are the very reason why the GT-R is as fast as it is. take them away and why even bother to use it to race? any non-factory team would be stupid to convert a GT-R instead of buying another car....

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by madfast

as i said, these things are the very reason why the GT-R is as fast as it is. take them away and why even bother to use it to race? any non-factory team would be stupid to convert a GT-R instead of buying another car....

Then we agree.

All the things that make the R35 what it is, are completely anti-race, which is fine for people who just care about having a "fast car" at all cost. You should check out the Ultimate Aero SSC, it's another "fast car at all cost" model. But to claim the R35 has a "rich racing heritage" is bull.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Read my actual post, the chassis of all three are identical. Sure, they have different options, but the chassis is race proven. No, they don't race an awd version as FIA doesn't allow awd in endurance classes. The simple fact is that the GT-R wasn't meant for racing, at least internationally sanctioned, endurance racing.

Does that make it a bad car? Of course not. But it does make it fundamentally different (and in the eyes of many, myself included inferior) to the 911. For the record, the lack of sanctioned racing heritage for the Cayman actually influences my opinion of that car too.

Further, Nissan actually did well with the old 300Z, and the Z continues to be an odd fit in the Nissan line up, not as capable as the GT-R, but with more heritage and racing history.

therein lies the problem. its PERSONAL BIAS, not scientific FACT. and as long as its presented in that manner, nobody can argue that point. but once somebody uses that as evidence, then we know we're not dealing with objectivity anymore...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Then we agree.

All the things that make the R35 what it is, are completely anti-race, which is fine for people who just care about having a "fast car" at all cost. You should check out the Ultimate Aero SSC, it's another "fast car at all cost" model. But to claim the R35 has a "rich racing heritage" is bull.

where its allowed to race? yes...

its like saying the bugatti veyron is garbage because it has no race heritage. uh hello? does anybody even allow that car to compete?

since when do we fault a car on what it hasnt done? and overlook what it has? oh i know, when its a japanese car... got it.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by madfast

therein lies the problem. its PERSONAL BIAS, not scientific FACT. and as long as its presented in that manner, nobody can argue that point. but once somebody uses that as evidence, then we know we're not dealing with objectivity anymore...

Of course. But until the GT-R starts racing on the world scene, it still won't have racing heritage, which was how this all started. I pointed out how the lack of facts effect my personal bias, but the facts are still facts.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Of course. But until the GT-R starts racing on the world scene, it still won't have racing heritage, which was how this all started. I pointed out how the lack of facts effect my personal bias, but the facts are still facts.

again, the fact that it hasnt raced has to do with rules more so than any other factor, not its race worthiness as so many here are trying to imply.

where can the GT-R race to prove itself? which series? i havent looked at every single rule set, but the ones i have, almost always bans AWD and/or electronically controlled drivetrains. and guess what the GT-R is known for?

by the same token, the 911 GT3 has the racing background. the 911 turbo? not so much. so should we trash that car as well? and dont say "well its the same chassis" because i can very well say "well its not the same engine/drivetrain"...

the bottomline is to not fault cars like the GT-R because they dont have major racing victories. besides the obvious monetary investment involved in racing, you have to look at rules. some cars just dont fit the mold. if there were more cars like the GT-R and 911 turbo maybe there would be a specific class for them to have a racing home. but as of now, they just dont fit in, and its hardly their own fault for being different.