German Car Zone

I read the whole thing, monaroCountry. Harris accepts the GT-R could be 15 seconds faster even before taking conditions into account.

I'm not getting worked up. I'm emphasizing the mistake people make when (mis)interpreting these times. I agree about the independent testing. This is yet another independent test confirming that the GT-R is very close to the GT2. Its ultimate best-condition lap is likely closer to Nissan's claim than to Porsche's claim.
BTW, did you follow up on your previous post about the former rally driver getting 7:49 on the GT-R? You'll find it quite illuminating.

It's funny how so many of you guys are defending Porsche on this. The fact that the GT-R is only a few seconds slower than the GT-2 should be proof enough that Gt-R is badass. Why? Because the GT2 was never it's competitor. And as for question how the GT-R got the time they got on 'Ring. Well, thats where the fault in this test comes into play. Nissan have claimed time and time again that the tires they used were the Dunlops to get the time, and they HAVE stated those tires will be stock on the '09 GT-Rs with also minor tweaks in the suspension and software. So, obviously these guys F__ked up. Also, the other point that makes this test moot is the fact that the GT-R was a customer car but the GT2 was a factory car. Also the main problem with this is, Nissan has claimed the target to be the Turbo, so why test it against the GT2?

My last point...who cares, that record has already been destroyed by the Viper ACR and the ZR1.

Come on Guys, We have 2 admit that The GT-R 4 a $100 000 is the best sportscar you can get....and whether its faster or slower than the GT2, Its still 1 heck of a car from a Japanese Manuf, I wonder if the exact car came from a Gernman Manufacturer would all these complaints be coming out?

It's funny how much discussions the GT-R created...
C'mon, comparing the GT-R to a GT2 and bashing the GT-R for being slower and not achieving the factory time? Have you seen the price of both cars?

The GT-R is cheaper and way faster than the 911 Turbo. That was AFAIK confirmed by a whole lot of independant test that a Turbo can do nothing against a GT-R in most of the case.

That is an incredible achievment. Maybe the GT-R is far from the mere 480hp it clamims to have, and closer to 500++, but who would complain to get more HPs for the same price?

The GT-R is badass. Incredible performance. The Turbo is slower, but more fun. To each his own, but there's no denying Porsche has been hit hard this time. I would never take the GT-R over any Porsche, but that's my problem. Thing is, a GT-R is faster, safer, cheaper, easier than a Turbo.

Some very interesting comments about tires here:
Social network for drivers, friends and brands| Community | DRIVERS REPUBLIC

The Sport Cup+ tire in Porsche-spec N-rating is apparently quite different from the non N-rated regular Cups. They have less rubber (more "tread"), an additional circumferential groove, and siping that is absent on the regular tires. Visually, all of the grooves appear quite wider (meaning less rubber), most particularly the outer groove.
Just as crucially, in Porsche specification they are a harder compound so are less likely to be as temperature-sensitive as the regular Sport Cups. The compound itself utilizes material (silica) to improve wet weather grip.

Cup+ information from Michelin's UK site:
"Homologated by Porsche on the 911 (997) GT3 / GT3 RS versions, and by BMW on the new M3.

Easy to drive in wet conditions: wet road holding close to Michelin's sports tyre range (Pilot Sport 2) which was rated amongst the best in German press tests in March 2006 (ADAC, Sport Auto)."


The assumption that the GT2 was more affected by the damp/drying and cold conditions hinges on the assumption that its tires are like any other Sport Cup semi-slick. This appears to be totally erroneous. No wonder SteveD and Jethro Bovingdon were so impressed with the GT2's behavior in these conditions.
This also applies to the earlier test by Evo with the GT3. Anti-GT-R fanboys on some Porsche forums are still whining that the GT3 was at disadvantage in the cold weather. As we can see from this Nurburgring test, and considering the information from Michelin as well, they haven't got a leg to stand on.

But as we've seen before, even the standard MPSC's are not that bad in the wet, so long as there isn't any standing water. Remember when TopGear tested the M3 CSL in damp/wet conditions. It was faster than the AWD Murcielago in the dry...

Good old BMW...

On a more serious note. The MPSC+ are just tires, they do not create magic and an awd car will perform relatively less worse than a rwd car in damp or wet conditions. But with a great tire like this the differences are made smaller.

From what I know the CSL was not supplied with the same tires used on the 997 GT3.

It also depends on the weight of the cars in question. When one car is much heavier than the other, all bets are off. AWD cars tend to be more secure in the wet at everyday driving paces, well below 10/10ths. But when pushed to their limit, their natural tendency to understeer is exacerbated by the wet conditions. This is precisely what Autocar found when conducting their E46 M3 vs Audi S4 comparison in dry and wet conditions: despite similar tires, the M3 was faster by a larger percentage in the wet than it was in the dry. They found the same thing in their BBDC 2005 article, where the Mitsubishi Evo did exceptionally well in the dry, but once tested on the wet course, some RWD cars simply crushed it.

You're right about the CSL tires. Those were a much more hardcore dry-track biased tire.

I have never heard of those results so they are news to me. I believe we usually see awd performing better in the wet than rwd. Regarding weight, isn't the GTR a bit heavier?