http://magazines.drivers-republic.com/driv...ic/thetruth030/

Sorry if Repost!

 

*warning personal OPINION*

I hate how the porches looks so much that i dont even care how it preforms compared to the gt-r i would take a gt-r over a Porsche any ware andy time hands down.. Even with a glass tranny.

 

Both times are disappointingly slow. Perhaps they needed a better driver. Regardless, very fast cars they are.

Had they equipped the GT-R with the Dunlop tires, I feel it could've overtaken the GT2's time. Regardless, still very slow times for both.

 

awesome article
even though the GTR was slower it really shows what an amazing car it is with the power and weight disadvantage, and this coming from a big Porsche fan.
The GT2 actually sounds like too wild of a car, spinning in 5th gear

 

I decided not to read the entire article but it was pretty interesting from the tid bits of it I read. Maybe having a better driver should settle this dispute.

 

Good article! Thanks for posting.

 

It was a damp track and it was cold. So with no temperature in the road and water being there to make things worse I don't think the times are that bad.

They were 17 seconds off of the quoted time by Rohrl for the Porsche but 27 off of the GT-R. The driver can tell you the places where he lost out to the Porsche. But they can't figure where the 27 seconds would come from in the Nissan. At least in this case the two cars were compared on the same day, in the same conditions, with the same driver, whether you agree with the times or not.

 

I'll say this, The GT-R was meant to go head to head against the Turbo. The fact that it's being compared to the GT-2 is a testament to how good it is.

 

two cars seperated by almost 100k...

 

No they were 17 seconds off the quoted time for the Nissan as well.

Remember they used the Bridgestone tires that Nissan themselves claimed to run 7:38 around the ring.

Nissan's 7:29 claim was with Dunlops which this test admitted to not using.