Porsche accuses Nissan of cheating...
10-01-2008, 05:15 AM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Downingtown, pa
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i throw it up to the fact that almost every review magazine has lapped the gtr faster than the 911 or they were dead close and then again look at Top gear fast lap time! GTR wins and as said by many before if this was a 1-4 sec difference then this would not be such a big deal, but 20+ sec, that is just ridiculous it is just like typical german car owners, they hate knowing a "jap" car is faster and cheaper then their "pedigree" german sports car, but i do love porsches and hope to own one day i just hope i dont turn into a douche bag.
10-01-2008, 05:19 AM
#83
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-01-2008, 05:52 AM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly... Whether I'm interested in purchasing either of these cars or not...Or what part of the forum I decide to view. Is none of your damn business.. You don't own this forum.
Thirdly. No.. Feuds like this Porsche/Nissan nonsense won't affect any decision I may or may not have about purchasing either of their offerings. I buy what "I" like.
Lastly... Relax man...This kinda Bulls**t isn't worth arguing over.
Peace.
Last edited by Greg06; 10-01-2008 at 05:56 AM.
10-01-2008, 06:27 AM
#86
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone with an open mind and an understanding of physics and how it applies to cars always had trouble with the times Nissan claims for the GTR especially given the specs[weight, power etc]. Ive always thought the GTR that ran 7:29 was a ringer. More boost and sticky tires. No proof and this Porsche attack can be construed as sour grapes. I doubt we will ever know conclusively and will come down to having faith in the MFG lol.
I love the GTR but that time continues to give me fits with the specs Nissan gives for the GTR. I believe the car is vastly underated at 480hp and may have been done just to equal Porsche 911 TT 480hp number. The Japanese have been underating cars for decades so this is no stretch. Just my opinion.
I love the GTR but that time continues to give me fits with the specs Nissan gives for the GTR. I believe the car is vastly underated at 480hp and may have been done just to equal Porsche 911 TT 480hp number. The Japanese have been underating cars for decades so this is no stretch. Just my opinion.
10-01-2008, 06:39 AM
#87
New Member
Anyone with an open mind and an understanding of physics and how it applies to cars always had trouble with the times Nissan claims for the GTR especially given the specs[weight, power etc]. Ive always thought the GTR that ran 7:29 was a ringer. More boost and sticky tires. No proof and this Porsche attack can be construed as sour grapes. I doubt we will ever know conclusively and will come down to having faith in the MFG lol.
I love the GTR but that time continues to give me fits with the specs Nissan gives for the GTR. I believe the car is vastly underated at 480hp and may have been done just to equal Porsche 911 TT 480hp number. The Japanese have been underating cars for decades so this is no stretch. Just my opinion.
I love the GTR but that time continues to give me fits with the specs Nissan gives for the GTR. I believe the car is vastly underated at 480hp and may have been done just to equal Porsche 911 TT 480hp number. The Japanese have been underating cars for decades so this is no stretch. Just my opinion.
10-01-2008, 09:58 AM
#89
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, hopefully you see my point.
10-01-2008, 10:40 AM
#91
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if I understand you correctly. But case in point of the underating was the Toyota Supra TT. Claimed 320hp crank but was dynoing close to 300hp. Never mind the fact that the 2jz was a severly detuned race capable motor at even 320hp. That whole gentlemen aggrement thing they had going where the mfg never listed the cars over 276hp even if they made more power. That 320hp rating for the Supra was US spec. in Japan it was rated at 276hp. Someone correct me if Im wrong.
Also as mentioned one mag dynoed the GTR at around 425rwhp. That equates to way more then 480-500hp at the crank so it is underrated from the factory. Mysteriously at the same power output as its benchmark 480hp Porsche TT. Marketing ploy. If the public were actually getting a 480hp 3800lb car its performance would be quite a bit slower. Computers can only do so much.
its fun to analyze all of this but in the grand scheme of thing it dont mean much. Its not going to stop me from wanting either one of these cars.
10-01-2008, 10:50 AM
#92
New Member
iTrader: (29)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Get out my way pimpin, LA
Posts: 33,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not sure if I understand you correctly. But case in point of the underating was the Toyota Supra TT. Claimed 320hp crank but was dynoing close to 300hp. Never mind the fact that the 2jz was a severly detuned race capable motor at even 320hp. That whole gentlemen aggrement thing they had going where the mfg never listed the cars over 276hp even if they made more power. That 320hp rating for the Supra was US spec. in Japan it was rated at 276hp. Someone correct me if Im wrong.
Also as mentioned one mag dynoed the GTR at around 425rwhp. That equates to way more then 480-500hp at the crank so it is underrated from the factory. Mysteriously at the same power output as its benchmark 480hp Porsche TT. Marketing ploy. If the public were actually getting a 480hp 3800lb car its performance would be quite a bit slower. Computers can only do so much.
its fun to analyze all of this but in the grand scheme of thing it dont mean much. Its not going to stop me from wanting either one of these cars.
Also as mentioned one mag dynoed the GTR at around 425rwhp. That equates to way more then 480-500hp at the crank so it is underrated from the factory. Mysteriously at the same power output as its benchmark 480hp Porsche TT. Marketing ploy. If the public were actually getting a 480hp 3800lb car its performance would be quite a bit slower. Computers can only do so much.
its fun to analyze all of this but in the grand scheme of thing it dont mean much. Its not going to stop me from wanting either one of these cars.
The spokesman (believe he helped build the GT-R) at Zdayz said the drivetrain loss is around 10% BUT I have no idea how believable that is.
So.... who's baller enough to do what I said
10-01-2008, 10:52 AM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, hopefully you see my point.
My point in agreeing with that poster is..That its really pointless to argue like many in this thread have been doing...
As for contradicting myself? I re posted the part of my post which you conveniently left out below.
Respectfully you'll my point as well.
btw ( Im bored due to a freaking cold
)Now I wasn't the only one who agreed with said poster.. And why you decided to solely point me out for it? I don't know.. Even tho I used a smiley (
) to point out my lite heart ed response to it..
Last edited by Greg06; 10-01-2008 at 10:54 AM.
10-01-2008, 11:10 AM
#94
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-01-2008, 12:00 PM
#97
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now... one of the biggest variables in this that none of us know how efficient the drivetrain is so its hard to say unless someone dyno's it at the crank and then at the wheels.
The spokesman (believe he helped build the GT-R) at Zdayz said the drivetrain loss is around 10% BUT I have no idea how believable that is.
So.... who's baller enough to do what I said
The spokesman (believe he helped build the GT-R) at Zdayz said the drivetrain loss is around 10% BUT I have no idea how believable that is.
So.... who's baller enough to do what I said
10-01-2008, 12:46 PM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Okc,Ok
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car and Driver had a slower GTR in one test that they composed. They stated that the 1st GTR was seconds faster. So it possible that Porsche got and tested a GTR made on a Wenesday or whatever. The slower GTR when on to beat out the Z06 and 911 Turbo. In another test a 911 GT2 tested slower around the track because of movement in the suspension Super Cars have ther Opps too it appears.
But what must be noticed is that in almost all the test since it's being introiduced into N. American market the GTR has proven it belongs in the SUPER CAR market by sure performance and that More for the money that Nissan is so good at.
One of these good ole days I'm gonna have me a GTR, after I buy a 370Z. Personally I think the 350Z looks better then a GTR, but in performance the Zs out of its leauge.
But what must be noticed is that in almost all the test since it's being introiduced into N. American market the GTR has proven it belongs in the SUPER CAR market by sure performance and that More for the money that Nissan is so good at.
One of these good ole days I'm gonna have me a GTR, after I buy a 370Z. Personally I think the 350Z looks better then a GTR, but in performance the Zs out of its leauge.
Last edited by Donsred350Z; 10-01-2008 at 12:49 PM.
10-01-2008, 01:08 PM
#100
New Member
iTrader: (6)
