Finally: Some facts on the GT-R's Ring time

[DanH]

I wish people wouldn't keep trotting out the clarkson quote about the engines all being hand build and producing radically different power outputs. He makes something up and people buy it hook line and sinker?

Tell you what, Nissan are going to have some problems when customers work out who got the duff engines

[Pugsey]

DanH said:

I wish people wouldn't keep trotting out the clarkson quote about the engines all being hand build and producing radically different power outputs. He makes something up and people buy it hook line and sinker?

Tell you what, Nissan are going to have some problems when customers work out who got the duff engines

Yep. Remember when Porsche had to stop their guys signing the engines they built? Loads of Porsche anoraks insisting that their OPC make sure that their cars engine was signed by Fritz not Hans because they KNEW Fritz's engines were always 2bhp to the good.........

[Dr S]

Streetrod said:

PHOENIXUK said:

Hopefully this puts that argument to bed

I really doubt that.

True, I just wanted to put the whole P to W issue in context as people keep digging it up without looking at the facts. P to W is only a part of what makes a car fast of not, it is not the be all and end all as some people seem to think.

Edited by Streetrod on Wednesday 5th November 10:37

Of course, I simplified the discussion. Power to weight is only one parameter. But I'd struggle to see where a GT-R on standard tyres outperforms an MC12 that is designed purely for the track in terms of chassis (beyond 4WD), aerodynamics etc.

[Trommel]

Are you sure your friend wasn't looking at one of the Spec V/V Spec mules going around at the same time (stripped interior, different wheels and tyres, different exhaust etc.)?

[Streetrod]

m12_nathan said:

Streetrod said:

c_w said:

Streetrod said:

I have used this example before but I think it is worth repeating here. The F1 cars of the 80's produced close to 1500hp with their turbo motors and weighed about the same as current F1 cars which only produce about 700hp. If we apply your logic then those F1 cars of the 80's would have produced lap times far in excess of the current cars but they don’t, and why is that? Well it comes down to superior aerodynamics and the ability to carry speed through the corners which is a combination of superior suspension and aero. And this is what the GT-R brings to the party, the ability to carry speed into the corners and manage its aero performance.

Hopefully this puts that argument to bed

I agree with what you're saying but the 1500bhp figure were only probably used in qualifying as back then they often used a different engine for qualifying or turned the boost up (and most circuits have changed since then so difficult to compare - checkout a mid 80s Silverstone lap record - avg speed 160mph(!) - they probably raced with not more than 1000bhp mainly for fuel consumption though. However all this power was very very peaky too and with a "normal" gearbox which can give away seconds on a lap, so probably not as useable as a modern 800bhp n/a engine with a fraction-of-a-second gearchange [plus the advance in tyres/chassis/aerodynamics as you said].

The problem with this argument is I think the GT2 has a better power to weight and better aero! it could be down to traction round/out of corners perhaps.

Edited by c_w on Wednesday 5th November 14:32

You make some good points, but it does not take away from the fact that the 80's F1 cars had a better P to W ratio than the modern ones. The modern technology has made the newer cars faster.

As for the aero the facts are that the GT-R has a Cd of 0.27 and produces positive downforce and the GT2 has a Cd of 0.32 and also produces positive downforce. So it might not look like it but the GT-R is the more aerodynamic car. And this is another reason why the GT-R does not need as much power as the Porsche to go the same speed.

Cd means nothing without frontal area... CdA is a more useful figure.

That is partly true; unfortunately I have not been able to find CdA figures for both cars. I was just trying to illustrate how much work Nissan had put into the aero performance of the GT-R.

[shoestring7]

Streetrod said:

m12_nathan said:

Cd means nothing without frontal area... CdA is a more useful figure.

That is partly true; unfortunately I have not been able to find CdA figures for both cars. I was just trying to illustrate how much work Nissan had put into the aero performance of the GT-R.

Looking at a R32 and GT-R at Goodwood on Sunday was revealing; the GT-T is f-ing gigantic in comparison with the old car - and that's pretty big already.

SS7

[paul_k]

. Corvette Z06

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 22.3 sqft
CdA = 7.58 sqft

Ferrari 430

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 21.53 sqft
CdA = 7.32 sqft

911 Turbo (2006)

Cd = 0.31
Frontal Area = 21.96 sqft
CdA = 6.81 sqft

Nissan GT-R

Cd = 0.27
Frontal Area = 22.5 sqft
CdA = 6.07 sqft

[DanH]

paul_k said:

. Corvette Z06

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 22.3 sqft
CdA = 7.58 sqft

Ferrari 430

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 21.53 sqft
CdA = 7.32 sqft

911 Turbo (2006)

Cd = 0.31
Frontal Area = 21.96 sqft
CdA = 6.81 sqft

Nissan GT-R

Cd = 0.27
Frontal Area = 22.5 sqft
CdA = 6.07 sqft

That seems very low on the Nissan given the size of the thing. Was the figure from somewhere authoritative?

[Trommel]

DanH said:

That seems very low on the Nissan given the size of the thing. Was the figure from somewhere authoritative?

Figures from information in Motor Trend.

[forza whites]

DanH said:

paul_k said:

. Corvette Z06

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 22.3 sqft
CdA = 7.58 sqft

Ferrari 430

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 21.53 sqft
CdA = 7.32 sqft

911 Turbo (2006)

Cd = 0.31
Frontal Area = 21.96 sqft
CdA = 6.81 sqft

Nissan GT-R

Cd = 0.27
Frontal Area = 22.5 sqft
CdA = 6.07 sqft

That seems very low on the Nissan given the size of the thing. Was the figure from somewhere authoritative?

Don't believe that CD at all!! The GTR with just 1.0 sqft > than the ferrari......? measured by who...Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder...

[JamesK]

You Porsche fanboys crack me up. Such hilarious bitterness

[gp900bj]

Dr S said:

Here a couple of interesting observations from Nissan's GT-R record drive, that come from a highly reliable source without any connections to/interest in Porsche.

Nissan had a couple of GT-R's at the Ring that day. The car that did the record run featured:

• stripped out interior
• missing pre-cat
• use of 110 octane race fuel

These were the changes/alterations that my friend could observe. They indicate that weight was below and power well above a standard car. Given these "improvements" it appears likely that the car also featured non-standard rubber - but this last comment is only an assumption.

Porsche had Walter Rohrl checking out the GT-R and his best time was 07:45. Yesterday another former Rallye champion (who holds the fastest lap on the Ring in the wet - so no rookie either) managed to get near 07:50 in not fully ideal conditions using a stock customer car from overseas.

Given these data points the 07:29 posted by Nissan were not set by a standard car. End of story.

Given that Walter R managed a truly excellent 07:45 I wonder why Nissan bothered to cheat at all. It's a fantastic time well into 997TT/GT3RS territory for a fraction of the price that should really get the guys at Porsche (and potential customers) thinking. IMHO the car also has a dramatic presence in the metal and sounds great.

The 07:29 from a standard GT-R, however, only people could believe who like to ignore some basic laws of physics and/or are happy to find a reason to look down on people who can afford more expensive cars than themselves.

Wow, fascinating!

There is one plain and glaringly obvious reason why you friend is either full of sh*t or hallucinating:
He claims the interior of the car was stripped out. The car in the 7:29 ring video clearly displays a full interior right down to VVIP spec red striped trim and double stitched seats. So precisely WTF was stripped out? Please don't bring back some 9/11 truth-esque response.

On top of this you expect us to believe that Nissan allowed some random dude with no affiliation to Nissan, no contractual agreement and no Intellectual Property agreement unlimited access to all their test data and engineering details. I've worked for a private firm for several years who engage in far less critical product development than Nissan and they would not hesitate to set the hounds on any unknown who came within meters of project information.

All I see here is more grand speculation and unsubstantiated BS being put forward as "facts". Tell your friend to make things interesting. Write a complete report, with legal aid, put his signature on it and file a false advertising claim against Nissan. Then post your results.

Till then we will reserve the right to judge the GT-R based on it's real world results. The GT-R is crushing Porsche's best in almost every tarmac rally it is competing in. Earlier this year a 24 yr old kid got behind the wheel of an R35 and brought down one of the greatest and most experienced tarmac rally victors in Australian history, Jim Richards, who was behind the wheel of a 997 gt2. This kid beat Jim, who was running an MPSC shod 911 Gt2, using a GT-R wearing factory Dunlop Run Flat road tires because he simply could not source R-comps for the GT-R.

So much for calling Walter Rohrl.

[Trommel]

forza whites said:

Don't believe that CD at all!! The GTR with just 1.0 sqft > than the ferrari......? measured by who...Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder...

Fact.

[forza whites]

Trommel said:

forza whites said:

Don't believe that CD at all!! The GTR with just 1.0 sqft > than the ferrari......? measured by who...Ray Charles/Stevie Wonder...

Fact.

It may well be....but having seen both on the Road close up...the GTR looks much bigger/wider.....

Maybe the Japs have smaller wind tunnels

Ugly looking thing though...

That said Nissan have done a very good job with a supremely quick car..that has ruffled the 'establishment' somewhat....can only be a good thing....

Edited by forza whites on Friday 7th November 14:01

[forza whites]

JamesK said:

You Porsche fanboys crack me up. Such hilarious bitterness

Nearly as hilarious as your car history........

[Dr S]

gp900bj said:

On top of this you expect us to believe that Nissan allowed some random dude with no affiliation to Nissan, no contractual agreement and no Intellectual Property agreement unlimited access to all their test data and engineering details. I've worked for a private firm for several years who engage in far less critical product development than Nissan and they would not hesitate to set the hounds on any unknown who came within meters of project information.

......If you had read my post properly you'd have realised that the data logs I referred to were from the tests the former rallye champion (Wolf) did last Monday. He used an overseas customer car - Nissan were not involved in this. The test was initiated by KW.

Your comment on "random dude" just shows how little you know. Here another quote from this thread which you apparently have not read either:

AdamT said:

Just to add a bit towards your post dr S. The aforementioned rallye star during one of the recent nurburgring 24hrs 30-45s a lap quicker than even the manthey car when heavy fog descended on the Eifel. He knows the place very very well.

I dropped him an email and he sent me this and asked me to post it onto the discussion:


"Hi Adam,
Its funny how fast information goes around the world! I drove the Nissan GTR yesterday for KW with the KW clubsport and with the original suspension. All other parts were stock and the weight was original! Due to the fact, that there where some passing manouvers and 2 small mistakes in my line, the theoretical best time, calculated from my best sectors (with data logger), was a 7.46. ( a real lap was 7,49)
So I think, it is not possible, to go faster, when W.Röhrl and Chr.Menzel also where not able to go under 7.45!
The secret source, who watched the test of the 3 cars is not so secret: He owns a guest house in Nürbrug and was there at the test and watched everything. I spoke to him 2 days ago and it was true that tha car was far away from stock, that means power, sound, tyres, exhaust, weight!
But anyway the Nissan GTR is fast also in stock outfit and fun to drive. Only when acclerating it would need more power to the rear, to kill the understeer. Under braking conditions it steers very good into corners! Sometimes to much, but then it is even more fun!
If You want, You can post that in the internet! Source: Wolf!
Danke und Viele Grüße"


I am a big fan of the GTR, I am a little saddened that Nissan have cheated which does detract hugely from the cars very impressive performance. (7:45 full laps is astonishing for such a heavy car).

best,
adam

[paul_k]

Maybe its time to do a comparison of Downforce, Sorry I meant upforce for the 911...

[Streetrod]

paul_k said:

. Corvette Z06

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 22.3 sqft
CdA = 7.58 sqft

Ferrari 430

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 21.53 sqft
CdA = 7.32 sqft

911 Turbo (2006)

Cd = 0.31
Frontal Area = 21.96 sqft
CdA = 6.81 sqft

Nissan GT-R

Cd = 0.27
Frontal Area = 22.5 sqft
CdA = 6.07 sqft

Thanks Paul for those figures, I have also had those numbers confirmed as being correct. The problem most people have is they look at a car and make an instant assumptions as to how aerodynamic a car is and too a layman a Porsche does look more aero, but as you have shown this is not always the case.

[forza whites]

Streetrod said:

paul_k said:

. Corvette Z06

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 22.3 sqft
CdA = 7.58 sqft

Ferrari 430

Cd = 0.34
Frontal Area = 21.53 sqft
CdA = 7.32 sqft

911 Turbo (2006)

Cd = 0.31
Frontal Area = 21.96 sqft
CdA = 6.81 sqft

Nissan GT-R

Cd = 0.27
Frontal Area = 22.5 sqft
CdA = 6.07 sqft

Thanks Paul for those figures, I have also had those numbers confirmed as being correct. The problem most people have is they look at a car and make an instant assumptions as to how aerodynamic a car is and too a layman a Porsche does look more aero, but as you have shown this is not always the case.

How has he shown it with those figures?

Its not just about frontal area....Look at the Ferrari figures....This in the main is down to the amount of Air scoops/Inlets on the bodywork..as with the 911 Turbo (quoted as 0.31)..the turbo intakes 'Penalise' the airflow over the body surfaces....as the 'standard' 997 is 0.29...and being higher off the ground to boot....

If the Ferrari and the GTR have around the same BHP and the GTR has a more 'efficient' Cd rating (as per the much quoted figures).....How come its not as fast at the top end (as the F430), when Air compressibility/Bow shock wave starts to become a factor?

[tomw2000]

What I don't understand is (well actually there's a long list, but in this context) why has the GTR specifically caused such an uproar when compared to the performance of Porsches and why now?

I'm pretty inexperienced/new to (relatively) nippy cars, so do let me know if this _has_ happened in the past.

But surely in the past there were other cheaper cars with better/similar performance to the Porsche models of the time? I dunno, older C2s versus various cosworth's, mercs, BMWs etc? (someone gimme a hand here).

Why is there such 'panic' about the GTR (and maybe the odd bmw M series car) and that Porsche have to do something now?

Surely porsche models compared with other manufacturers have always been in the same boat?

Edited by tomw2000 on Friday 7th November 15:11 - silly typos

Edited by tomw2000 on Friday 7th November 15:12