Both times are disappointingly slow. Perhaps they needed a better driver.

I was impressed by the times (for both cars) considering the conditions. Also this driver (ie. Chris Harris) is probably better than 99.9% of people out there ... so even though they could have got a better driver, this driver was plenty good enough to get more than respectable times from both cars.

Seems like many people have very unrealistic expectations of what times can be achieved around N'ring ... anything below 8min is supercar fast and (usualy) extracted by a pro level driver.

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.

Totally agree.

Quick summary of the article for the people who can't be bothered reading it ...

- GTR was a privately owned Jap import on RE070 tyres. It had the speed-limitter removed.

- GT2 was Porsche's press car on PilotSports Cup tyres. Article claims that they verified the car's acceleration, and were not able to match Porsche claim/figures (hence validating that it's not a ringer).

- Track was closed off and there were no other cars on the track. Also the track started totally wet, but was mostly dry towards the end (when the 'hot laps' were performed). Still wet/damp off line and in certain sections though.

- Times were extracted back to back, and by the same driver.

- GT2 was much quicker in terms of acceleration, and also was quicker through the fast corners while the GTR was quicker through the slow corners.

- Conclusion to the article was that the GT2 has plenty left in it, and that they can see where extra ~20sec would come from if it was 100% dry and driven by expert (like Walter Rohl). On the other hand they thought that they extracted much more out of the GTR (ie. closer to it's maximum potential), and did not see where the extra ~25sec would come from. They said that even in dry and with the Dunlops they can't see where that kind of improvement would come from.

ps. Interesting thing to note is that 3 non-Nissan sources have the GTR now at ~7:55 at N'ring (ie. Sports Auto, Driver's Republic, and Porsche). Though, not sure how much of an 'independent' source Porsche is so In would not take their claim to be anymore valid than Nissan's. Still, 7:55 for 2 separate 3rd party tests (with still some felt due to the conditions & tyres) is a pretty good start for the car.

 

Maybe...but certainly no better than Rohrl or Suzuki who drove their respective cars. But yeah, condition certainly played the part.

This is just as Nissan has claimed, that using the Bridgestones is at least 5 seconds slower than the Dunlops, which could've matched the GT2's laptime. Regardless, both are incredibly fast track cars, it's just that these laptimes are not the definitive measure of their true ability - due to condition, driver, and/or whatever else.

Good article but lousy, hard-to-read format!

 

Apologies. I went from the info given in the article's closing and didn't bother to do the math myself. Guess this is what happens when you trust a car rag.

 

*OFF TOPIC*

under the GTR's picture seems to spell a word it is

 

i truly think that's the biggest factor in my book.

what mods could a owner do with that left over cash? surely the GT-R has it's problems, and surely it doesn't have some of the luxury features of some of these other high performance cars, but it's the same thing that keeps the corvette/Z06 popular. Many people want the fastest car they can afford.

i still wonder what reviews/owners/potential buyers/rivals would think of the GT-R if they badged it as an Infinity