Porsche Claims Nissan GTR Cheated the 'Ring

[doublejceballos]

Well I would love to see the lap redone with a showroom gtr despite what nissanreps have said
You can't believe what nissan says because they are nice let's let facts and numbers speak for them selves. Porsche is not being childish it's being realistic. Maybe you guys should give it a tryand wake up from this dream where the gtr is bring called a super car.

[ARC240]

I think what Porsche has done is embarrassing.

Even if Porsche was right, they should have saved some professionalism as a company instead of whining like a child.

THANK-YOU CAITHNESS!:bow down:
It's about time Porsche stopped whining, I've lost all respect for that company when they made that claim. Nissan has the tires that were used on the GTR (at time if testing) on display....so, not only has Porsche tried to play the "well he cheated card" (like a 2-year-old would do), but they've also been proven wrong . Never did I think a company like Porsche would stoop to such levels.

Porsche to me used to equal class...not anymore.

[ARC240]

Well I would love to see the lap redone with a showroom gtr despite what nissanreps have said
You can't believe what nissan says because they are nice let's let facts and numbers speak for them selves. Porsche is not being childish it's being realistic. Maybe you guys should give it a tryand wake up from this dream where the gtr is bring called a super car.

You can't be serious....really, you can't be. Porsche is upset because in every car enthusiast show, magazine, website, forum etc., people are saying how the GTR beat the legendary Porsche sports car. When you think about it, it's not good for Porsche's reputation to have people talking about what happened. Thus I can conclude that the reason why Porsche would make such a (stupid) claim, is because they'd like to create some doubts in the minds of buyers, since a doubt isn't a solid fact, they'd still get a lot of buyers, fewer, but still more than if it was a proven, solid fact (which no one had raised any case against) that the GTR beat out Porsche. To me, this claim is just an instance of a company trying to get the world to shine the spotlight on them, like a child who feels as though they are lacking attention and will do anything and everything to get you to pay attention to them. You seem to forget that Japanese engineering is very, very advanced. YOU are claiming that the GTR is not a super car, but a lot of more credible sources suggest that; yes, this car is in fact a legitimate super car. Considering all the reviews and all the things that have been reported (aside from the drive train difficulties)...the GTR is in fact a SUPER car. Even if the GTR WAS slower, I like the GTR's style and design more than the Porsche. Porsche has no proof that the GTR used R-compounds, the tires that the GTR used on the Nurburgring while testing are on display at Nissan. Anyone can walk in, examine the treads, etc. I think you should cut the GTR some slack...it's a remarkable and revolutionary car. In the end, it all comes down to what you want (IMO), but at the same time, making claims that you have no proof for is not the most classy of the classy moves. If you got beat, you got beat, there's nothing you can do about it...just suck it up and try to come up with something else.

[doublejceballos]

haha, there are some very passionate gtr lovers in here
Well first off, let me say, that i think the gtr is a better looking car, and i dont see anyreason why it wouldnt be faster than alot of porsche's around the ring, and infact i hate porsches except the carrera gt mind you.
I have not heard the most recent knews that the nissan has displayed the tires they used, as midterms have just finished and ive been busy living real life and havent had time to surf the interweb for car news.
But my view stays the same. you capitolized "YOU" when i was saying that i thought it wasnt a supercar, well, its the same people calling this car a supercar that called the r32's that we all drive around super cars, im sorry, thier not.
They are sports cars. But i admit, time and time again as I hear from every person who has driven the gtr that it is phenomenal
Heck even Jay Leno thought it was amazing.
I have respect, but I think that people are getting a little out of hand over this vechicle. If it really can do the ring as fast as they claim it can, then my foot is in my mouth on that aspect. I dont like the way the numbers add up, how can advanced engineering beat physics?
Sure its a great vehicle, its shaping up to be a remarkable vehicle, but i dont think it fits the criteria to be a supercar, by my standards anyways.
It just doesnt live up to the standard of a long list of "real"supercars.

[Rogarth]

I have respect, but I think that people are getting a little out of hand over this vechicle. If it really can do the ring as fast as they claim it can, then my foot is in my mouth on that aspect. I dont like the way the numbers add up, how can advanced engineering beat physics?
Sure its a great vehicle, its shaping up to be a remarkable vehicle, but i dont think it fits the criteria to be a supercar, by my standards anyways.
It just doesnt live up to the standard of a long list of "real"supercars.

... Okay, I'lla admit, I am a fanatic when it comes to the Skyline GT-Rs and the new GT-R. As such, I'lla try my best to keep this objective.

First things first, how do you define a super car? To establish a proper objective measure, let's take a look at all other previously accepted "super-cars" and see what's common with them all?

#1 that comes to mind, performance aspects. These cars must be fast, in relative terms, they must be fast compared to most other cars out on the market. Now, how would you define fast? Track times are a damn good measure, along with 0-60 times, etc etc. Plenty of metrics you can use.

As for the GT-R? Take a look at every comparison test you can find that's legitimately done. Nuremburgring is one example, plenty of lap times to compare against it, Top Gear Test Track, is another one. Car reviewers, industry experts, etc. And in many, the GT-R has preformed at a level comparable if not better than most cars that have been labeled and accepted as super cars.

Now, aside from performance, what else would you consider is part of the formula for a super-car? Price? Luxurious interior? F1-race inspired design elements? Or just the simple fact that people will look at it and think "Wow! Rich person!"?

And another point I'd like to bring up. Nissan isn't "beating Physics" or any ******** like that. Frankly, what Nissan has done is deepened their understanding of physics and chemistry. They're relying on their brains here to engineer something remarkable, not magic and illusions.
Now, I'm pretty sure you're gonna try to pull something like that HP/weight ratio and Lap-times comparison chart out again, and say some B/S about how the numbers just don't make sense. Well, let me point you in the direction of a well-grounded theory within the philosophy of sciences discipline, that of Paradigm Shifts. It's a theory that scientific advances come in leap and bounds once in a while, when our underlying understanding of something shifts, and begins a whole new series of little steps. The old paradigm is abandoned and the new one supplants it. That's what's happening here.

(At the risk of sounding like I work for Nissan) The Legend is freaking Real, Get over it. T_________T

[Browny_R31]

actually its is classified as a super car for the simple reason that there is a general indutry rule that if your car car run the Nur ring under a 7 min 40... then your car can be used under the supercar standard. There are exceptions to this rule with the veyron posting a 7.40 but still be classified as a supercar due to its outright speed.

Now the industry has created whats called a hyper car..... its pretty much the next level up from supercar and to get that, the car must run under 7:30. So your right... the new GT-R isnt a supercar... its a Hypercar.

the current records are as stands:

7:22.1 2009 Dodge Viper SRT-10 ACR Driver: Tom Coronel Date: 18 August 2008 . Hardcore Package option, non-stock race seat with a six-point harness, suspension alterations, aero adjustments

7.22.4 2009 Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1 Driver: Jan Magnussen Date: October 27, 2008 General Motors conducted test

7:24.3 Maserati MC12 Driver: Marc Basseng Date: August 2008 Evo Magazine conducted test

7:24.7 Pagani Zonda F Clubsport Driver: Marc Basseng Date: August 2008 Evo Magazine conducted test

7:25.3 Ferrari Enzo Driver: Marc Basseng Date: August 2008 Evo Magazine conducted test

7:27.82 Pagani Zonda F Clubsport Driver: Marc Basseng Date: September 2007 Pagani conducted test, semi-wet conditions

7:28 Porsche Carrera GT Driver: Walter Röhrl Date: 2 July 2004 Autobild

7:29 2009 Nissan GT-R Driver: Toshio Suzuki Date: 16 April 2008 Nissan Motors conducted test, base GTR with stock tires, video confirmed

7:32.02 2008 Porsche 911 GT2 Driver: Walter Röhrl Date: 2007 Porsche conducted test, semi-slicks tires used.


Aww GT-R beat the GT2 and the GT2 was running semi-slicks. Look the GT2 isnt a hyper car... it is still a normal supercar You can see why the sour grapes came out from porche.... they were beaten and didnt like it.

edit: also found this......7:54 Nissan GT-R Date:September 2008 Porsche conducted test, stock vehicle with stock tires

[doublejceballos]

... Okay, I'lla admit, I am a fanatic when it comes to the Skyline GT-Rs and the new GT-R. As such, I'lla try my best to keep this objective.

First things first, how do you define a super car? To establish a proper objective measure, let's take a look at all other previously accepted "super-cars" and see what's common with them all?

#1 that comes to mind, performance aspects. These cars must be fast, in relative terms, they must be fast compared to most other cars out on the market. Now, how would you define fast? Track times are a damn good measure, along with 0-60 times, etc etc. Plenty of metrics you can use.

As for the GT-R? Take a look at every comparison test you can find that's legitimately done. Nuremburgring is one example, plenty of lap times to compare against it, Top Gear Test Track, is another one. Car reviewers, industry experts, etc. And in many, the GT-R has preformed at a level comparable if not better than most cars that have been labeled and accepted as super cars.

Now, aside from performance, what else would you consider is part of the formula for a super-car? Price? Luxurious interior? F1-race inspired design elements? Or just the simple fact that people will look at it and think "Wow! Rich person!"?

And another point I'd like to bring up. Nissan isn't "beating Physics" or any ******** like that. Frankly, what Nissan has done is deepened their understanding of physics and chemistry. They're relying on their brains here to engineer something remarkable, not magic and illusions.
Now, I'm pretty sure you're gonna try to pull something like that HP/weight ratio and Lap-times comparison chart out again, and say some B/S about how the numbers just don't make sense. Well, let me point you in the direction of a well-grounded theory within the philosophy of sciences discipline, that of Paradigm Shifts. It's a theory that scientific advances come in leap and bounds once in a while, when our underlying understanding of something shifts, and begins a whole new series of little steps. The old paradigm is abandoned and the new one supplants it. That's what's happening here.

(At the risk of sounding like I work for Nissan) The Legend is freaking Real, Get over it. T_________T

well my friend first of all, i must say props to keeping it objective, i thought i was going to get much worse of a backlash
second, your top gear comment made me jump to season 11 and sift through the episodes. I watched jeremy clarkson break his old man neck and saw the stig's lap time.
I must say, you've just about got me
As i type this off the paused video....
its faster than the 1st koenigsegg, the carrera gt and the LP640
within a second of the gtr is the atom, the enzo and the mc12,
and the zonda f is not far off
what the hell. i dont get it. It doesnt make sense.
Coming back to the laptime board makes me realise the possiblity of the ring time. and all those cars make way more horsepower, so i dont think i can rely on hp numbers as a basis for a supercar.
it still doesnt do over 200, which is a pretty big requirement, but as these lap times tell, its still fast.
I think the make or break of this car as a supercar for me is begining to be emotive. Any uneducated person who looks at the gtr is not gunna look at it with awe, and say "thats a supercar"
I guess im hooped.

[Z-Tuned]

I'm not about to jump on the nay-sayers of the GT-R. They are entitled to their opinion but I'm convinced driving it would change attitudes.

I've driven it. A lot. About 200 miles of twisty mountain roads in Lake Tahoe, 30ish hot laps on the Reno Fernley raceway. And another 1000km around these parts, Forks of the Credit, Twin Rivers and 400 series highways.

The car is phenomenal. Scary fast through the twisties with sub-4.0s 0-60s on any road. Grips in dry, wet, uneven & loose. Yet is totally luxurious and a dream to drive considering what it is. It can be driven all year.

Bottom line, it is an everyday supercar costing $81,900 that will embarrass most twitchy exotics. Even an intermediate driver will not be able to push their 'exotic' as hard as this car charges anytime, anywhere. Period.


PS: 25 seconds because the Dunlops were shaved? Yeah right.

[ARC240]

But my view stays the same. you capitolized "YOU" when i was saying that i thought it wasnt a supercar, well, its the same people calling this car a supercar that called the r32's that we all drive around super cars, im sorry, thier not.
They are sports cars. But i admit, time and time again as I hear from every person who has driven the gtr that it is phenomenal
Heck even Jay Leno thought it was amazing.
I have respect, but I think that people are getting a little out of hand over this vechicle. If it really can do the ring as fast as they claim it can, then my foot is in my mouth on that aspect. I dont like the way the numbers add up, how can advanced engineering beat physics?
Sure its a great vehicle, its shaping up to be a remarkable vehicle, but i dont think it fits the criteria to be a supercar, by my standards anyways.
It just doesnt live up to the standard of a long list of "real"supercars.

Um...I hate to break it to you, but for the era that the R32 was manufactured in, it WAS a super car in fact, there were few cars that could match or better its performance at the time. So the people who you say called the R32 a supercar were not only correct back then, but they are still correct today by calling the new GTR a supercar.

Secondly...engineering does not beat physics, engineering just uses physics to it's advantage and helps to design the vehicle to perform and respond better to the physical properties that previously would have hindered an older vehicle's performance.

You can make up any excuse, any argument, you can have crying fits, toss things across the room, do whatever your heart desires....but you can't deny the proper title of "supercar" to the Nissan GTR.

....nuff said.

[doublejceballos]

haha what a jackass. Crying fits? Throwing things around my room?
Seriously, I can hardly handle some people on this forum. Its so hard to tell who the adults are sometimes.

[Rogarth]

Well, fanatics do on occasion get like that when defending something near and dear...

But anyways, as I was trying there are many other ways of defining what a super-car is, and you are right on one point up there. In that the GT-R doesn't have as much brand recognization as other marques like a Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, Aston Martin, and etc.
In fact, many people I know, if they hadn't known of the GT-R for what it was beforehand, wouldn't think it was anything more than a normal "sporty looking Nissan".... Sad but true. And to many others, that's something people would like as a part of owning a super-car, the social status symbol of being able to own something exclusive.

But to me, the GT-R is something different and rather than being exclusive in some way, ie price, it is rather Inclusive. I mean that there is a fundamental difference in approach with the GT-R's design and marketing. The foundation of the GT-R, past and present, has always been to create and foster a community of people who know what the car is, appreciate it, and respond to it. And those who will respond to it, are actively seeking it out in the first place, and this car is designed for those people. So, because of this, Nissan is striving to keep costs low, while putting as much as they can into the car, trying to keep the club as inclusive as possible. Furthermore, this is what underlies their philosophy of making the car drivable by as many different people as possible, from grammas to pro-racers.
Now, companies like Porsche? Their thinking is a bit different. They try to make their cars as exclusive as possible. So that they can establish/reinforce their brand image. Ways to do this include; by price, or by luxury, or by hyper-performance, etc.
To me, this is the fundamental difference in how both companies are going about this. And I'm not trying to paint Nissan as some glowing angelic being either. This IS at the very fundamental level, a marketing ploy. It's a difference in method.

But anyways, back to the original point I was trying to make, because of this difference, Nissan sort of geared their social-status-symbol focus towards the GT-R community, rather than the general society at large. So that's why you won't see any advertisments for it, and why you can expect serious street-cred from others who are in the community itself. It's a different kind of direction for super-cars. In my opinion.....

.... ..... Ya know, after giving this a LOT of thought, I'mma beginning to see why Nissan is so hopped up on that whole "Shift" marketing strat lately....

[ARC240]

haha what a jackass. Crying fits? Throwing things around my room?
Seriously, I can hardly handle some people on this forum. Its so hard to tell who the adults are sometimes.

Oh, come on now, I was clearly being sarcastic about the "crying fits and throwing things around your room" part lol, at least I hope you wouldn't do that . I was exaggerating my point to that degree to say that no matter what, you should recognize and respect the GTR for what it is. I'm not insulting you, I'm trying explain to you that in my eyes, the GTR is a car envied by many manufacturers and by other manufacturers trying to put it down with such claims because the GTR beats their masterpiece vehicle isn't a very prestigious way to go about getting the spotlight on another companies vehicle. This is just friendly discussion, of course opinions clash, all I'm doing is showing you the way I look at the situation. Your opinion is your opinion, no one can do anything about it. Name-calling over the internet isn't my idea of "friendly chat", so I'm sorry to have riled you up .

[Godzooky]

There's still enough market share for both to exist happily so I think Porsche's statement was unnecessary. The only GTR I've seen in person happened to be at a Porsche dealership where someone bought it for his wife and she didn't like it and a week later she had herself a new Porsche. There are people that will always want the GTR, and there's always going to be people who would rather have a Porsche. Leave the silly arguments aside and go make cars!

[doublejceballos]

well i definately have come to respect the gtr alot more since the begining of this thread.

[klys]

Hum ....

YUMMY

http://magazines.drivers-republic.com/driversrepublic/thetruth030/