2012 Nissan GT-R: 530HP, 7.20 Ring Time

Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by thebarron1989, Oct 18, 2010.

  1. Tyres pressure is not "race tyres" <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
    Harri stalks about race tyres (and you was agree): show me these race tyres
    customer 430S faster than offical 430S @ Balocco Alfa Romeo
    customer enzo (R6T): best slamo and best skipad ever in 2003
     
  2. update: 458 italia tested @ 0-200 9.8s (QR): media manipulation
    997 TurboS 9.8s (AZ): ...? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  3. I don't think Harris said anything about RACE tires.
    I wouldn't doubt that the tires used by the Scuderia (and the 458 in Autocar) were at the very least properly heat cycled and worn to the optimum tread depth. This is not cheating, but clearly not the same as what other manufacturers have provided for their own cars. Namely, because those manufacturers are largely absent from the 3rd party independent test field.

    So you agree, changing tire pressures is not cheating. Correct.

    The rest of your other post is garbage, per usual. When you continue to repeat it, it just shows how obstinate you are. Utterly irrational.
    Ex: If 458 can do 0-200 in 9.7, why can't a Turbo S (which has advantage of AWD and more torque)? Turbo S did 0-100 in 3.0 vs 3.3 for 458. But look at 100-200: 6.4 for 458 vs 7.0 for Turbo S. Is Porsche still so fast compared to 458?
     
  4. Without knowing exact temperature (morning vs afternoon?), wind and humidity, you cannot accurately claim conditions were the same.

    You are also looking at only 1 straight to determine power. How about these other other differences between 7:24 time and 7:26?
    .1s faster during 7s run between Flugplatz to Schwedenkreuz
    .14s faster during 7s run from Adenauer Forst exit to Metzgesfeld
    .14s faster during 7s run from Ex-Muehle to Bergwerk
    .3s faster during 17s run through Kesselchen
    .16s faster during 7s run through Pflanzgarten

    All of these (and others) add up to quite a difference. But, Suzuki also loses .1s at Hohe Act. Another .1s from Tiergarten to the end. These are cornering-based areas. He also has massive wheelspin coming out of Metzgesfeld. If conditions are same, why is he slower in these areas? US mag tests indicate the new GT-R should perform just as well or even better in handling tests. Yet, Suzuki is slower in these cornering areas.

    Look at the Supertest of the ZR1 between GM's driver and HvS. Both cars reach same speed at some point on the final straight: 288 kph. GM's driver was actually slower than HvS on the back stretch through Kesselchen: 229 vs 240 kph. 11 kph difference. Yet GM's driver is 12s faster overall. How is this possible? Slick tires? I doubt that. Mechanical grip seems to be very similar, with HvS marginally faster in some slower speed corners. The major difference is in the fast corners where committment is paramount. Is HvS going to find this comittment after a single warm up lap?
     
  5. #330 Guibo, Apr 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  6. So, I have to agree your points, but you can't stop me to think that: "The power seems greater than the claimed. It seems not to be the same power of the newer car, but it seems not so far." Simply, because accurately, also you can't.
    You are the first that doubt Ferrari's claims even if I honestly show you about power declared out of their factory cars with internal rumors, are usual within their 5%. And now? How do you want to stop me to think about Nissan? Something without any factory claim? Prove me they aren't at their high tolerance with that car if you can. Don't tell me the TopGear mule example again, because it should not to be the same thing. If it's the same thing, then prove me the mule slower than the 911 was the same mule, with the same engine spec of the 7.26 car. If you can't prove me all these points you have only to accept how I'm thinking about that.

    So now? How you are trying to convince me to believe Ferrari aren't saints when the other mnfs are? Take a look at autopareri forum. It's five years I was saying Ferrari send fast car for testing, and you know that. But you think really I'm so stupid to think they are the only one? Rememeber what I said about rumors behind Lamborghini and Porsche's owners (you agreed with Mercedes and TVR), just looking some tests, or supersprint's dynos. I have seen a lot of fast Ferraris tested, but even I have seen a lot of other mnfs cars particulary fast. Now, I have to believe even Nissan is usual, are always Saints on every spec the sent?
     
  7. I do not want to re-hash the Ferrari issue in every thread, but since you ask...
    The reason doubt exists for Ferrari is because you yourself explained that they use non-stock ECU settings on engines that are already blueprinted, plus increased rev limits. Then there is the self-provided fuels, presence of ECU mapping equipment, and it makes sense: if nothing is going on, Ferrari should be content with the same fuel that all other competitors must endure and thus the playing field is more level; not yet completely level, as others did not go to the track beforehand to set their cars up.
    Then the discrepance between stock vs customer cars, and in relation to other cars.
    We also have seen the 360M performing like no other car against ostensible competitors. This would be like a ZR1 turning in CCX-R times.

    Secondly, why would ANY GT-R mule be less powerful than another? All are blueprinted. It would make sense to me that if Nissan wanted to hype up the GT-R, the car that goes up against the Turbo in a major world magazine should have pulled away from the Porsche. If they had wanted to hype up the GT-R, why not give HvS a 550-600 hp sample and say "See? Times are repeatable." It should be so easy. In my mind, if HvS in only a few laps, turned identical times to Suzuki, who had hundreds+, on the same day, I would be somewhat suspicious of the example Nissan gave to HvS. There is simply no way in hell he can know the GT-R's particular handling traits (largely a byproduct of its AWD system) in only a couple of laps.
    3rdly, we have the dyno result between mules and production-spec cars from C&D. The production ones had more boost, and slightly more power. They also matched the performance of CUSTOMER GT-Rs, and in some cases were even slower.
    4th, we have the DH trap speed at the same point between customer S1 GT-R and S1 mule. Close to within 2 kph.
    5th, the acceleration curves in the telemetry provided by Nissan shows the 7:38 car to be as fast-accelerating as the 7:29 S1/S2 hybrid. Its acceleration curve @ Schwedenkreuz actually looked slightly steeper. The telemetry data has been publicly released for years now; yet, no-one can claim the the 7:29 car accelerated faster than the 7:38 car.

    I know you will go to your grave believing that Nissan are cheating, no matter what REASONABLE evidence is provided; that much is clear. mafalda does not seem to want to answer the question, so I'll ask you: Do you consider what Ferrari did for the Scuderia in Evo and the 458 in Autocar to be cheating? Forget, for a moment, what I think of it. Do YOU consider it cheating?
     
  8. !!!!!!!
     
  9. Said something about the 7:26 car? It doesn't seems.

    "Do you consider what Ferrari did for the Scuderia in Evo and the 458 in Autocar to be cheating?"
    About their method? I agree, you know. Their engines? within 5%. Are you who don't agree.
    Answer my question now: why you don't want to prove me they were out of their 5% claimed? Forget, for a moment, that 360M. Wich other Ferrari was out of 5% claim for you?
     
  10. 7:38 vs 7:26 car, below. 7:38 car is quicker through Schwedenkreuz. How is this possible?

    Wait, first things first: You agree that changing tires and tire pressures is NOT cheating? Is this correct?

    I did not say other Ferraris were out 5% claim. Merely that the 360M seemed quite a LOT more than 5%. To this, you agree it was way too fast. My point is we do not see a GT2/ZR1/LP670 shooting into CCX-R territory.
    But if you must ask, what do you know about the Oakley Design 458? Do you have any documented tests of this car?

    Do you doubt ZR1's factory claim with the same fervor you show against Nissan? I do not see it. Why not? HvS was slower by 12s, whereas he is 10s slower in the new GT-R. And that GM car could for sure go faster still.

    Ask you again: Why does Nissan send a "weak" 'Ring mule to match up with a Porsche press car? Would that make any sense if they want to show their car is legit competitor to Porsche's speed? Why send "weak" 'Ring mule to HvS for same-day test with Suzuki? Does that make any sense? It would seem that if Nissan were to cheat, they would send HvS out in a car that would FOR SURE match Suzuki's time. Then, for people like you, no doubt: same time means same power. Familiarity? No concern. Everything to know about a car's limit on a 20.6km track can be learned in a single warmup lap. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  11. Yes, and no doubts that persons like you are good for think that for the right case <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>! Was not me who said that margins were so thin in just few laps well knowing the track. This doesn't not means for the very last limit, last effort,the very high 100%, that's plausible, but explain the approach everytime to the track by a driver with a lot experience over there.

    "...is quicker through Schwedenkreuz. How is this possible?"
    Are years you are trying to confute every my respectable opinion with just your viceversa (sometimes contradictory ways) never using just an agreement on some part of the point. And yet, some different opinions are plausible, respectable, expecially when there are no solid basis (factory rumors etc) for close the point. Every time just trying to confute with something close, but not exactly that. How is this possible? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

    If you have your step by step REASONABLE conclusion, even you have to accept that some steps may not to be shared by everyone. Expecially when there is large space for own opinons, so own REASONABLE conclusions. With your method seems there is no space for something thinking different opinions by you, and that's funny. But it can be <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

    You said:
    "Did you honestly think Ferrari engineers will tell you "Yes, we run 680 PS 599?"
    Are these REASONABLE evidences provided or YOUR reasonable opinion?For the same my own opinion I always thinked that 7:26 car was so fast for a 485 PS engine.
    At least Ferrari have announced by rumors that they were not for a 620 PS 599 GTB. But within their 5% claimed.





     
  12. I think you are just running around in circles again. You said you agree about limited nature of knowing a car's condition on just a video, yet you question the 7:26 time so that is WHY I bring up the comparison with the 7:38 car.
    You believe it's not possible with a 485 hp car. Do you have the time and video of a 485 hp GT-R by which to compare? Why would Nissan send a mule to TopGear that was visibly slower than Porsche GB's yellow press car, a car that was positively crushed by the Z06 in same-day testing by Autocar?

    My point about Ferrari was that of course they would tell you it's within 5%, even if it's really not. The difference here is that we have customer GT-R vs press/mule GT-R information and that information suggests no discernible increase in power for the mules. In fact, the C&D data suggests the opposite: the mule was running lower boost and produced lower hp. Which makes sense, considering customer GT-Rs have recorded higher last 60' trap speeds than VBox instantaneous speed of that mule.


    Do you consider that GM lied about the ZR1? 12s difference between HvS and Jim Mero (who for sure did not drive a 100% lap). Tell me what is different about HvS's attitude and professionalism when it comes to driving a ZR1 vs a GT-R vs a 911 Turbo S.

    Do you have any information about Oakley Design 458?
     
  13. "I think you are just running around in circles again."
    No, I think you don't get the point. Read it better.

    "My point about Ferrari was that of course they would tell you it's within 5%, even if it's really not."
    Here you are, as soon there is large space for your own opinion come out your side: for the same reason who would stop Nissan to try with a higher blueprinted engine process than the other mules that attempt having no specific basis? Or, here we say: you want to be clever in the small district? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
    Again:"..when there are no solid basis (factory rumors etc) for close the point. Every time just trying to confute with something.."

    "Do you consider that GM lied about the ZR1?"
    I haven't delved into simply for lack of interest.

    "Do you have any information about Oakley Design 458?"
    No, I haven't.





     
  14. Whoa. Chill out CSI.
     
  15. Can someone kill this thread?
     
  16. PLEASE
     
  17.  
  18. #343 Guibo, May 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Based on how close Chris Harris's customer S1 car got to the DH trap speed as the mule (even with the crap run up corner condition), I don't think we have to conclude any major discrepancy between customer cars and mules. Is your argument that the mules are faster than customer cars, or that customer cars are also 520+ hp?

    Why the lack of interest in the ZR1? 12s difference = lack of difference, but 10s difference (between HvS and Suzuki in 2011 GT-Rs) points to cheating? Is this to do with Japanese in general?

    I ask you a 2nd time: On what do you base your opinion that the GT-Rs could not have set those times with 485 hp? Do you have a test and video of a for-sure dyno-proven 485 hp on the 'Ring?

    Let me ask you 3rd time: Do you consider Ferrari's manipulation of tire pressures and change of tires in those Brit tests to be cheating? Will you call it cheating, or NOT cheating?

    I ask about the Oakley Design 458 because of the data here:
    http://www.optionauto.com/2010/10/15/mode-demploi-290-kmh-en-ferrari-458-italia-oakley-design/
    This car is running modified engine, lightweight (titanium exhaust system), providing 623 PS. Exhaust and wheels combined amount to 52kg weight saving over the standard car.
    100-200 in 6.8
    I do not know if that is Oakley Design's claimed performance, or if that is Option Auto's confirmed performance. In the videos, there are 2 hard runs, neither of which show a 6.8s 100-200.
     
  19. guibo and F40 what are you guys arguing about?

    summarise it for me, i cbf reading 20 pages.
     
  20. Summary is that F40 doesn't believe the previous 'Ring mules have 485 hp, even though he can't point to a single dyno-proven 485 hp GT-R running on the 'Ring. Basically, he seems to be making an assertion about power without even a starting reference point.
    My assertion is that Nissan, having sent mules with less boost and power than production ones, having sent press cars that are much, much slower than customer cars, deserves the benefit of the doubt. After all, the first independently tested cars that beat Porsche's UK press cars weren't even factory-provided: they were customer cars fresh off the boat, some with not even the minimum break-in mileage completed and with their 112 mph limiters still intact.
     
  21. #346 F40 Le Mans, May 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    --I'm not talking about 520+ hp mules/customer cars, I'm talking that 7:26 mule may had been a particular blueprinted engine process for a top lap attempt. No one could stop Nissan about this. Like every mnfs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_tuning
    In engine blueprinting, all the specifications are double-checked. Usually this indicates closer-than-factory tolerances, with custom specifications appropriate for a street car or a race car. The goals are either to re-manufacture the engine to the rated power for its manufacturer's design (because not all mass-production engines put out the rated power), or rebuild the engine to make more power from a given design than otherwise intended (because custom engines can often be redesigned to different specifications). Blueprinted components allow for a more exact balancing of reciprocating parts and rotating assemblies so that less power is lost through excessive engine vibrations and other mechanical inefficiencies.

    Ideally, blueprinting is performed on components removed from the production line before normal balancing and finishing. If finished components are blueprinted, there is the risk that the further removal of material will weaken the component. However, lightening components is generally an advantage in itself provided balance and adequate strength are both maintained, and more precise machining will in general strengthen a part by removing stress points, so in many cases performance tuners are able to work with finished components.

    For example, an engine manufacturer may list a piston ring end-gap specification of 0.003 to 0.005 inches for general use in a consumer automobile application. For an endurance racing engine which runs hot, a "blueprinted" specification of 0.0045 to 0.0050 may be desired. For a drag-racing engine which runs only in short bursts, a tighter 0.0035 to 0.0040 inch tolerance may be used instead. Thus "blueprint" can mean tighter or looser clearances, depending on the goal.

    --My passion is particulary Historic cars, and I spend a lot of time reading about, Nissan hit me for its handling dote with a low power, and I wanted to deepen. I like the ZR1 but but not at the point.

    --Just a ratio behind the videos we have and the conditions. Nissan did the 7:29 with the lower temperature, the 7:26 was fast as the 7:24 car on fast segment of the track. No one may confute the point that Nissan did the first two records with blueprinted mule as customer cars are, but, even the 7:26 lapped with a higher blueprinted engine process built for that mule.

    --If they used size and pressure omologated is not NOT cheating. Verifing tire pressure is not cheating anyway.

    --I know how you are saying. The 458 engine mules were come out with about 580 PS. Customer cars are around 550 PS. We have to add few hp after the running-in is complete.

    "..he seems to be making an assertion about power without even a starting reference point."
    The same mode as you when you think about a 680 PS 599 GTB without a reference point.
     
  22. #347 F40 Le Mans, May 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Here something I reserch about the 458 tuned:

    http://www.oakleydesign.eu/top-navigation/oakley-news/oakley-design-press-release

    Following international acclaim for their finely honed Porsche GT2, GT3 and Panamera conversions, Oakley Design is now proud to announce their tuning programme for the Ferrari 458 Italia.

    Production limited originally to 5 has now been increased to 7 cars due to early demand and confirmed orders, with each bearing a unique build number plaque. Outside of this Limited Edition model, individual parts will also be made available for clients who do not require the complete package.
    There is also now a possibility of a Ducati 1198 superbike with ‘carbon edition’ design to compliment the sale of each car to make the ultimate Italian package complete.

    With Jon Oakley’s motorsport background central to the company’s philosophy, any change, whether aerodynamic or mechanical, is only done for sound technical reasons.
    Wind tunnel testing proved that the carbon-fibre front spoiler lip adds 25kg of downforce over the front axle at 150mph (240km/h, benefiting aerodynamics.
    Further internal airflow management is seen in the radiator air exit ducts beside the headlamps, which receive carbon-fibre inserts and improved ducting from the radiators.
    Deeper, wider side sills improve airflow control down the cars flanks, as well as helping to optimize the flat-bottom effect. The longer but 10kgs lighter carbon-fibre rear diffuser has deeper boundary layer fences to improve directional stability.
    Finally, a new rear spoiler with Gurney flap adds 23kg of downforce over the rear axle at 150mph. This works together with the underbody diffuser to reduce the Italia’s overall drag by smoothing out the separating airflow.
    The only exterior alterations made for cosmetic reasons are the signature Oakley Design carbon-fibre roof panel, mirror covers and engine cover insert below the rear window glass. These are matched in the engine bay by carbon-fibre panels covering the inner wings and rear bulkhead.

    Lower kerb weight automatically improves performance and puts less stress on the suspension, tyres and brakes. The complete titanium exhaust system with triple outlet pipes and no bypass valve shaves a huge 32kg from the Italia’s aft section, where it counts the most.
    At half the weight of cast alloy equivalents, the new lightweight Forged HRE wheels save a significant 5.0kg of unsprung weight per corner. Their adjusted offset keeps the wheel centre line the same as OE to compensate for the half-inch wider footprint at each corner.
    Oakley Design will offer 9.0J x 20-inch and 11.0J x 20-inch wheels with 245/35ZR20 and 295/35ZR20 tyres, as well as one-inch diameter smaller 9.0J x 19-inch and 11.0J x 19-inch HRE Racing wheels shod with the New Pirelli Trofeo tyre in sizes 245/35/19 and 325/30/19 that meets the latest EU regulations for street legal trackday rubber.
    Apart from lower back-pressure in the new exhaust system, the improved throttle response and output is down to the larger carbon-fibre air intake box, larger ram air feeds and larger diameter white silicon pipes with Oakley Design logos connecting the air boxes to the intake.
    With an ECU remap optimising the fuelling and ignition curves, these changes account for an approximate 10 percent power gain from 570bhp to 623bhp, while torque is up five percent from 540Nm to 573Nm
    Carrying around 65kg less and with more power on tap, the factory 3.4 sec 0-100km/h time drops to 3.0sec, while top speed has been recorded at over 335km/h.
    As reducing the sprung weight has the effect of stiffening the suspension, the car is undergoing extensive testing in this form. A bespoke suspension kit for hard-core trackday drivers is also underway at Intrax, Oakley Design’s suspension and development partner.
     
  23. #348 Guibo, May 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    F40LM, you are forgetting an important part in your source:
    "The goals are either to re-manufacture the engine to the rated power for its manufacturer's design (because not all mass-production engines put out the rated power), or rebuild the engine to make more power from a given design than otherwise intended (because custom engines can often be redesigned to different specifications)."

    In your mind, Nissan are always cheating, so the first reason (to hit the claimed power mark) seems not to apply. Yet look at the 1/4 mile trap speeds.
    C&D 7/08: 115 mph (uncorrected)
    C&D 8/08: 107 mph
    C&D mule: 119 mph
    Auto, dyno-verified @ 489 PS: 119 mph

    Look at customer GT-Rs:
    http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php?carmodel=1387&op1=%3E%3D&data1=&search2=et&op2=%3C%3D&data2=&stock=1&days=10000000&carmake=35&name=Search+DragTimes

    Consistently 118-121 mph, and that is *averaged* over the last 60', not instantaneous as in car mags. The instantaneous speed will be a bit higher still.

    If 'Ring mules are so carefully blueprinted to make more power, then why was Harris's borrowed S1 car virtually identical at the same point of DH even with the greasy/damp lead-up corner.
    Speaking of which, you are making your assessment of the 7:24 car vs the 7:26 car under the assumption that the 7:24 car has entered the straight at the same speed. You don't know that. He could very well have been slower through the final corner, and that means if he is quicker to the end (which he is), then that could be the power difference right there. As I say, in numerous places with straights at other parts, the 7:24 car seems consistently faster even though Suzuki is not consistenly faster in the corners; in fact, he is slower in some cornering areas.

    And you yourself said:
    "Regarding the GT-R and ZR1 cases, mules and press, maybe blueprinted cars vs customer cars pay attention at fuels used. It's possible that these factories doesn't used high process of blueprinted. I have never excluded."
    http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=0&fID=1&tID=175997&bottom=180#post195

    Re: 599
    We do have something of a reference to cause doubt. You yourself said the factory car for sure felt faster than a customer car. I'm wondering if you can really feel a
     
  24. face palm
     
  25. ...customer 599 in Motor Trend was also slower than the factory 599. Conditions? Maybe. But the GT2 and ZR1 in the same test were about s fast as in other tests. 7s difference in 0-300 for customer vs factory car is pretty noticeable.
    Why is the Oakley Design car (+53 PS, -63kg) slower in 100-200 than the factory car?
     

Share This Page