Drivers Republic attempts to answer which is faster on the 'Ring, GT2 or GT-R?
The Nissan GT-R set the 'Ring on fire back in April with a single lap of 7:29. That news didn't go over well in Germany, where team Porsche insinuated that Nissan cheated by using a non-standard GT-R to achieve the supersonic time. Porsche even took a bone-stock GT-R to the 'Ring and its chief test track driver could only manage a 7:54. Nissan defended its time as legit and has provided solid evidence to support its case, but Porsche established enough doubt for Drivers Republic to bring a GT2 and GT-R to the famed Nürburgring to see which vehicle was faster.
Drivers Republic put both cars in the hands of an accomplished Nürburgring veteran, Chris Harris, who is also the author of this excellent article. Both vehicles were stock, except the Japanese-spec GT-R had its limiter removed. The Nissan also had Bridgetone rubber at the corners, which are actually different than the stickier Dunlops that Tochio Suzuki utilized during his 7:29 run. Nissan claims the soon-to-be-standard Dunlops are five seconds faster, but that's when in the hands of Mr. Suzuki who is one this planet's preeminent 'Ring racers. The track was wet during the run, which you would think favors the AWD GT-R, though Harris claims the GT2 felt faster in a straight line. You're probably dying to know which vehicle came out on top, and while we will tell you that one car was nine seconds faster than the other, you'll have to follow the read link below to find out for yourself.
Gallery: 2008 Porsche 911 GT2
Gallery: Review: 2009 Nissan GT-R
[Source: Drivers Republic]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
SPF 1:06PM (11/24/2008)
Waiting for a commenting war... Set, go!
Reply
Rick 1:12PM (11/24/2008)
This topic again?
Reply
BigMcLargeHuge 1:12PM (11/24/2008)
GT-R on Bridestones (dry): 7:38
GT2 (dry): 7:32
6 seconds faster
GT-R in the cold and wet on Bridgestones: 7:55
GT2 in the cold and wet: 7:49
6 seconds faster
This proves nothing about the GT-R on Dunlops, or how fast they are in the dry.
But this is exactly what Nissan claimed the results would be on those tires.
Reply
Franz 1:29PM (11/24/2008)
I'm inclined to agree. I'll concede this round to the GT2 no doubt... but you'd think they'd use a GT-R similar to the one that Suzuki ran the 7.29 with... one with the Dunlops and the revised suspension. This one does pretty much what Nissan says it would.
j 1:33PM (11/24/2008)
maybe Nissan needs to give the guys over at DR some driving lessons as well.
BigMcLargeHuge 1:51PM (11/24/2008)
@j,
I'm not criticizing their drivers. It was wet. Both the GT-R and GT2 were an identical 17 seconds behind their fastest runs equally equipped.
I'm criticizing their conclusion. Why are they even bothering to bring up charges against the 7:29 time when they are running the wrong tires for it? That was... special.
If they were comparing to the 7:38 time with these tires, it looks like the Nissan is spot on with their claim.
Ligor 2:10PM (11/24/2008)
this proves Nissan is right in my mind.
You see: Porsche claimed 7:54 was the best they could do in the GT-R, yet in the wet this guys got it to 7:55 and with less sticky tires.
Definitely the Porsche is faster in the straight, but in the curves the Nissan seems to have the advantage. I bet in a dry track with temps around 65F and the Dunlops the Nissan will do the claimed 7:29
If the GT2 was given to the Nissan driver, I bet he could og faster than the 7:29, maybe part of the reason why the GT-R V-sepc was pushed back a bit.
I think Nissan is waiting the NSX and the coming GT2 with the engine upgrades before they bring out more havoc on the competition
taipeileviathan 4:04PM (11/24/2008)
wet run + sticky tires would've been disastrous for nissan, and then everybody would've been crying foul then. take it like men, would y'all please.
BigMcLargeHuge 4:39PM (11/24/2008)
Leviathan,
Thats easy, because the Dunlops come in Summer and All Season.
Like I said, these results were predictable. The GT-R wasn't supposed to be faster than the GT2 with the Bridgestones.
taipeileviathan 4:54PM (11/24/2008)
yes and if they had run the all-season during the 7:29 lap instead of the summer tires, they wouldn't've gotten 7:29. duh.
Wally 1:12PM (11/24/2008)
I've always given Nissan the benefit of the doubt but it's becoming harder and harder to defend the GT-R, there is mounting evidence that Nissan did exaggerate numbers.
Reply
John R 1:29PM (11/24/2008)
If anything the Driver's Republic results verify Nissan's claim.
In their hands the GT-R (a customer car) was 5 seconds off of the GT2's (a car provided by Porsche no less, think about that one) pace, which goes to what Nissan had said about the Bridgestones being 5 seconds slower.
Also when I consider that it was a wash between the two and not a 30-something second difference like Porsche has been claiming the more I believe Stuttgart is suffering from sour grapes.
I still wanna see the Stig do this same thing except with customer cars only.
Wally 1:40PM (11/24/2008)
I'm not as concerned about the head-to-head claims since I would agree that this did come out a wash because of cold and wet conditions.
I'm doubting their claim of 7:29 now. The driver said even in dry conditions he doesn't see how this car could squeeze out another 27 seconds which is what several independent sources have said now.
I need to see an outside source grab a stock GT-R and hit somewhere around 7:29 to make me a believer.
awdyes 2:16PM (11/24/2008)
This is a course thats varies from 7 - 10+ minutes.. in the dry trust me you can make up 20+ seconds, being a good driver...
pmiddle5 2:17PM (11/24/2008)
well here is the thing... When Nissan did that lap I guarantee it was on just enough fuel to get around the track once or twice, the tires on the car were heat cycled properly and thrown away as soon as they were deemed past their optimum, and the little Japanese man did not weigh much.
I mean really no one will get the same times as the manufacturer did because they wont put in the dollars/effort to get the exact same response.
tekd 1:13PM (11/24/2008)
I'll just point out that their GT2 time was really bad compared to Porsche's record time as well (they ran a 7:49), and if you actually read the whole article it mostly sounds like the weather and temperature made the GT-R's weight a big issue.
The fact that the GT2 was from Porsche themselves makes almost everything pointless though, since again the whole question of whether someone cherry picked a car or another is a problem. They should have gone with customer owned versions of both and driven several laps then averaged the best few to figure out the limits.
Reply
SteveDR 5:21PM (11/24/2008)
Hi tekd, in answer to your point the 911 GT2 was not cherry picked by Porsche. Porsche had no idea what we were borrowing this GT2 for, and since we'd already borrowed one of their GT2's on five previous occasions this was no big deal. We also knew this car well having featured it in two previous features (and videos) and testing its performance. We therefore knew that it was standard and as close to a customer car as we could expect.
The GT-R was a customer's car (a JDM import) and we'd also driven that on more than one occasion, so we also knew that to be standard and had already recorded a 9 second 0-100mph time on a previous occasion.
We didn't choose to produced this feature to match the claimed manufacturer times, that would clearly not have been possible given the time of the year, but we (like many of you) wanted to understand how two car that we had already set identical times on Silverstone's GP circuit would perform in the unique environment of the Nurburgring. We also had that very public accusation by Porsche and were more than a little curious to see what truth there might be to it.
Given Chris' experience of regularly lapping at sub-8 minute pace around the 'ring (he races a 997 GT3 Cup car in the VLN race series), he was using this test to judge 'how' each car would have been able to match their makers claims. That's what this article sets out to achieve, to provide an analysis of their respective capabilities within the context of this circuit and then let each of us decide whether we choose to believe their claimed potential.
BigMcLargeHuge 6:08PM (11/24/2008)
Steve,
This article was called "The Truth".
Then why exactly did Chris say that the purpose of the article was:
"not, you'll understand to claim a definitive answer to the question"
And now you even verify:
"let each of us decide whether we choose to believe their claimed potential."
I could think of no worse title.
tekd 3:43AM (11/25/2008)
Well, thanks for responding Steve, but if it's a Porsche provided vehicle that they give for testing then you can't really prove that it's the same as a retail vehicle. You may have tested it before, but it's not like Porsche would select the worst performing of all their GT2's to use as a press-test vehicle.
Honestly if we wanted to be as accurate as possible there would have to be a statistically large enough sample of both GT-R's and GT2's to give an idea of what the average GT-R and average GT2 can do-but since they're pretty rare cars as it is this might not be feasible.
Maybe you guys can sweet talk some GT2 owners into letting you guys drive their cars =P
220v 1:15PM (11/24/2008)
Not much to say, is there. I don't think anyone outside of the fanboy realm could be suprised at these results. The porsche is a better, more expensive car. So is the Corvette ZR-1. Not to take anything away from the Nissan GT-R; it is a fantastic value. However, this validates Porsche calling steirsheiße at the 7:29 lap time. Do it again, Nissan. We all want to see it.
Reply