British auto journos declare Nissan GT-R dogs bollocks

[Paul_The_Aussie]

wow some pretty informative posts and some funny ones.
as for the 'ring time and others, I think I would rather wait until a magazine or another independent body tests the car. I am not doubting the car is kick ass, I just think Nissan have overstated it in many areas.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

youtube quality is well known to be crap, and enlarging it will just pixelate it even more. way to go. :lol:

Lets see.

1. Screenshot from a Nissan video showing a tire that does seemingly appear to be a racing tire. (Again I would love to find a high res video, but not even the official site for the GT-R has it) Even despite the quality of the video you can clearly see three, asymmetrically positioned, vertical groves with no apparent horizontal grooves at all. It is dark, and the quality is terrible, but that is what I see.

2. Telemetry provided by Nissan showing G-Force capability on par with race cars, further suggesting the use of race tires.

3. The driver of the car commenting that the car was on cut-slick tires.

4. The GT-R outperforming many other highly developed supercars with much better power to weight ratios.

Now I know that defending something is much much easier, because you don't even have to say anything. Innocent until proven guilty. However, there is quite alot of evidence here supporting the fact that either the GT-R was on race tires or the claimed power and/or weigh of the car are incorrect. I don't hate the car, I'm just going by what seems logical to me. I have no doubt that the car could run under 8 minutes or even under 7:50, but 7:38?

 

[Leonidae]

Lets see.

1. Screenshot from a Nissan video showing a tire that does seemingly appear to be a racing tire. (Again I would love to find a high res video, but not even the official site for the GT-R has it) Even despite the quality of the video you can clearly see three, asymmetrically positioned, vertical groves with no apparent horizontal grooves at all. It is dark, and the quality is terrible, but that is what I see.

Funny, I can see horizontal grooves too, they're very hard to notice but they're there.

2. Telemetry provided by Nissan showing G-Force capability on par with race cars, further suggesting the use of race tires.

That G-force you're referring to is negative G, AKA braking, slowing down etc. And GT-R has phenomenal brakes. 104ft from 62-0, does that ring a bell? only a feet shy from Porsche that had ceramic brake option if i recall right. And then ,there's two karoussel-style corners, where the centrifugal forces easily might make the G-meter go wild. And even R34 could pull way over 1.5G's when cornering.

3. The driver of the car commenting that the car was on cut-slick tires.

and that has already been pointed out to be a misquote from another quote.

4. The GT-R outperforming many other highly developed supercars with much better power to weight ratios.

You're referring to Bugatti Veyron and Mclaren SLR? Bugatti was on track during open day, and Mercedes.. well, I guess that the 5-speed automatic held it back, or the un-defeatable nannies went berserk. who knows?

Now I know that defending something is much much easier, because you don't even have to say anything. Innocent until proven guilty. However, there is quite alot of evidence here supporting the fact that either the GT-R was on race tires or the claimed power and/or weigh of the car are incorrect. I don't hate the car, I'm just going by what seems logical to me. I have no doubt that the car could run under 8 minutes or even under 7:50, but 7:38?

I'd rather bet that the power is underrated.. but as I posted earlier, it has also very aggressive gearing, suited for track-oriented driving, and very low Cd-value. We will know for sure when the car will finally arrive and owners start postin results instead of hamfisted magazine drivers.

 

[thedguy]

and that has already been pointed out to be a misquote from another quote.

And we've already pointed out that you've never actually proven that. You just said "it's a mistranslation."

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That G-force you're referring to is negative G, AKA braking, slowing down etc. And GT-R has phenomenal brakes. 104ft from 62-0, does that ring a bell? only a feet shy from Porsche that had ceramic brake option if i recall right.

A touring car can pull up from 62mph in about 80ft, and that produces 1.8-2.0g.

And then ,there's two karoussel-style corners, where the centrifugal forces easily might make the G-meter go wild. And even R34 could pull way over 1.5G's when cornering.

The karoussels are banked, which reduces lateral G, converting it to centripetal. And if you even looked, it happens much more than 2 times. 1.5 is alot less than 2.8.

I'd rather bet that the power is underrated.. but as I posted earlier, it has also very aggressive gearing, suited for track-oriented driving, and very low Cd-value. We will know for sure when the car will finally arrive and owners start postin results instead of hamfisted magazine drivers.

We will certainly see.

 

[chaos386]

That G-force you're referring to is negative G, AKA braking, slowing down etc. And GT-R has phenomenal brakes. 104ft from 62-0, does that ring a bell? only a feet shy from Porsche that had ceramic brake option if i recall right. And then ,there's two karoussel-style corners, where the centrifugal forces easily might make the G-meter go wild. And even R34 could pull way over 1.5G's when cornering.

I just did a quick calculation, and going from 100-0 km/h in 104 feet translates to an average deceleration of 1.24 Gs, so peak Gs near -1.8 sound reasonable to me, especially with aerodynamic drag helping things along at the high speeds you'd be going at on a course like the N?rburgring.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I just did a quick calculation, and going from 100-0 km/h in 104 feet translates to an average deceleration of 1.24 Gs, so peak Gs near -1.8 sound reasonable to me, especially with aerodynamic drag helping things along at the high speeds you'd be going at on a course like the N?rburgring.

Keep in mind that the graph is near 8 minutes worth of data. Any peak G would probably not even show up as it would be so short lived. If you look at the graph, the points lowest on the negative g scale (1.6ish G, i would estimate.) were sustained for at least a few seconds.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

That G-force you're referring to is negative G, AKA braking, slowing down etc. And GT-R has phenomenal brakes. 104ft from 62-0, does that ring a bell? only a feet shy from Porsche that had ceramic brake option if i recall right. And then ,there's two karoussel-style corners, where the centrifugal forces easily might make the G-meter go wild. And even R34 could pull way over 1.5G's when cornering.

You need to go back and look at the graph again, there's clearly two g-force graphs, X-direction G's and Y-direction G's. The cornering G's peak around 2.8 G's.

 

[chaos386]

Keep in mind that the graph is near 8 minutes worth of data. Any peak G would probably not even show up as it would be so short lived. If you look at the graph, the points lowest on the negative g scale (1.6ish G, i would estimate.) were sustained for at least a few seconds.

If you look at the expanded portion at the bottom of the picture, the peaks on the graph are very fine, much less than a few seconds across at the tip. In the end, though, it's a slightly blurry photo/scan of a graph which wasn't terribly high-resolution to begin with. I'm not saying it's proof that they were using the stock tires, just that it's close enough for me not to cry foul until a third party has had a chance to test Nissan's claim.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If you look at the expanded portion at the bottom of the picture, the peaks on the graph are very fine, much less than a few seconds across at the tip. In the end, though, it's a slightly blurry photo/scan of a graph which wasn't terribly high-resolution to begin with. I'm not saying it's proof that they were using the stock tires, just that it's close enough for me not to cry foul until a third party has had a chance to test Nissan's claim.

:lol: yeah I guess it is kind of all fiddly details. Idk I guess I just see a couple of things that all coincide with each other, we'll know more in the future.

 

[hansvonaxion]

And we've already pointed out that you've never actually proven that. You just said "it's a mistranslation."

It was posted here...

?Mizuno claimed a time of 7minutes 38 seconds, compared with 7:43 for a Porsche 911 GT3 and 7:32 for a Carrera GT, but he was anxious to point out that there had been ?two wet patches on the circuit.? Indeed, he mentioned the ?wet patches? so many times that you wondered why Nissan simply hadn?t waited for a dry day. Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn?t ?real world.? Bizarrely, Nissan admitted to having different test drivers for different lapping. While Chief Test Driver Toshio Suzuki operates in the 7:30-7:40 range, his right-hand man is a 7:40-7:50 man.?

here

 

[thedguy]

It was posted here...
here

Well thank you for providing a source. That was my point Leonidae wouldn't do it.

+1 to you for knowing how to backup a point in a discussion. (as soon as I can give you points again anyway)

 

[hansvonaxion]

No worries.
It was actually Peter3HG, but he edited his post so maybe you missed it.

 

[Danny Tran]

Are dog bollocks a good thing or bad?

(Is the GT-R something I want??)

 

[Peter3hg]

No worries.
It was actually Peter3HG, but he edited his post so maybe you missed it.

I think the quote got a bit lost below the lap analysis thingy, I should have made it into a separate post.

 

[Peter3hg]

The Top Gear article is now available online.

Forget all that you think you know. The GT-R hasn't just moved the goalposts, it's obliterated them. Bill Thomas is overwhelmed

Kazutoshi Mizuno, Nissan GT-R chief vehicle engineer, describes his car as a "new kind of supercar, one with no competitors", and I thought of Mizuno-san as I nailed the GT-R's alloy throttle pedal right to the floor in second gear coming onto a quiet section of de-restricted autobahn near Koblenz.

I'd nailed that throttle pedal right to the floor a number of times already on this day - difficult to resist - but somehow the big Nissan seemed to lunge forward with even more intensity than usual.

In my imagination, it was sniffing the long, gently curving, slightly uphill stretch of 'bahn and contemplating the lack of legal restriction on ultimate speed. The only limit would be the power of the car to overcome resistance, and the driver's ability to negotiate traffic. Long may the derestricted autobahn continue: in dry, crisp, sunny conditions, this magnificent car would be safe and composed at any speed.

A bellow from the engine, a rush of revs, a gigantic accelerative force on my neck, second is gone, a flick of the right-hand, leather-trimmed shift paddle, bang, third gear slammed home and the mighty rush intensified still. My god, this car is fast, one of the fastest production cars ever made.

And so's the gearchange. Fast, that is. I could never describe the new GT-R without giving a nod to its incredible transmission right away. Mounted on a transaxle at the rear of the car for better weight balance, it is the technical highlight here.

'I could never describe the new Nissan GT-R without giving a nod to its incredible transmission right away'

In 'Normal' mode, the shifts from the twin-clutch semi-auto gearbox are rapid, with each pre-selected gear engaging in an instant, but in R mode they're even quicker. We're in R now, and we've hit 100mph in about 10 heartbeats.

No official performance figure exists for that increment, but expect an eight second 0-100mph time. It's fast, alright - 60mph comes up in 3.5 seconds, the standing quarter mile in 11.7 seconds and it goes on to 197mph.

The GT-R's all-new VR38 engine, a 473bhp 3.8-litre V6 with twin IHI turbochargers, makes a fine noise, like a deeper, more muscular 350Z V6 howl overlaid with a harsh, white-noise static blast from the turbos.

It is quieter and more gentle in character than the classic RB26 2.6-litre straight-six fitted to Skyline GT-Rs of old, and will probably never be as fondly regarded as a result, but there can be no arguing with its ability to rev, and no criticism of its power delivery. It is entirely linear, with no lag.

Bang into fourth. What a monstrous gear this is, a killing gear if ever there was one. There's no let-up in G pressure forcing my spine rearwards as the tacho needle climbs to the 7,000rpm redline. I have no idea what speed we're doing now, probably upwards of 150mph - I daren't take my eyes off the road.

Bang into fifth. Speed still piling on, the two-lane 'bahn taking on an alarming narrowness which multiplies exponentially for every 10mph you do over 170mph, the barriers closing in, the view beginning to blur to an extent you're not familiar with. A truck flits by on the inside lane, speed difference about 120mph.

Bang into sixth. Getting hairy now. It wasn't until we hit an indicated 190mph that Top Gear Creative Director, Charlie Turner, driving the canary yellow Porsche 911 Turbo glued to my tail, flashed his lights impatiently, sick of waiting. Mizuno-san reckons it doesn't exist, but we thought we'd try to find a competitor anyway...

More on the mighty Porsche later. Let's look at the star of the show first, Nissan's new flagship, the brand-halo supercar designed to be sold globally and showcase Nissan's technical skill.

This is not a Skyline, though it's difficult not to call it that. We know the super-quick Nissan in the UK as a Skyline, but in Japan the Skyline is a fairly ordinary four-door saloon with a two-door coupe sister - both are sold as Infiniti G35s in the USA.

Nissan has now dropped all links with the Skyline name, because this new GT-R is new from the ground up. Brand new, purpose-built chassis, brand new engine, brand new transmission, brand new body and design. 'Skyline' just isn't good enough.

'Nissan has dropped all links with the Skyline name, because this new GT-R is new from the ground up'

The GT-R is all aggression on the outside. To my eye, it is a phenomenal-looking machine, distinct from anything else. Very Japanese and very hard. The overall stance is all wide shoulders and slashing arcs, a ground-hugging, flat-sided brute.

The aerodynamic performance of the car is astonishing. It has a drag co-efficient to match that of a Prius at 0.27, so the shape is exceptionally slippery. Part of that is down to careful underbody design - a rear diffuser helps generate downforce at speed, too.

Step inside and you're instantly reminded of older Skylines. The design is functional rather than beautiful, quite old-fashioned and not trying too hard, with a large centre console angled toward the driver and a high instrument binnacle across from a large multi-function screen.

It all seems superbly well screwed together, as you'd expect of a Nissan, and the quality of the materials is high. It won't win design awards, but I really like the cockpit of this car.

Slot in behind the steering wheel and immediately you feel comfortable and relaxed - this isn't a strange, wide, low supercar, it isn't daunting in that way. It's much more like a normal saloon in feel. As we'll see, this easy-to-drive nature is a key component of the new GT-R.

Keyless entry means you only punch the red metal starter button behind the gear lever to fire up the big V6. With the engine ticking over with a deep burble, you bring the stubby lever back to A-M - it is a normal gate for an auto. Flick it to the right and you have manual, but I want to trundle out of here in automatic first.

The transmission clunks and clacks a bit, but you soon get used to it. Its low-speed manoeuvring isn't on a par with the auto-clutch unit on the F430 Scuderia, being slightly jerky in the uptake, but it's useable. On the move in auto mode, the gearbox is sublime, changing up early in the style of an Audi DSG and using the engine's torque to the full.

We burble out of Nissan's testing facility at the N?rburgring to meet the Porsche, bound for some of the best A-roads in the area, followed by the 'bahn.

You will have noticed by now that the Stig appears in these photographs. He materialised from a forest somewhere near Nitz, stood in the middle of the road and held up his hand for us to stop. I then rode shotgun as he thraped the GT-R for 20 minutes, absolutely flat-out, saying nothing. He then stopped and walked into another forest near Fensterseifen.

I have no idea how the Stig got to Germany, but Turner and I brought the Porsche 911 Turbo. Good yardstick, this. As we dispatched the low countries at an easy gait, driving overnight across deserted highways, it seemed inconceivable that Nissan could design anything to get even close to this car.

'That mighty 480bhp twin-turbo straight six is utterly unburstable and awesome in its power'

It is ancient. By 'ancient' I don't mean old-fashioned, other than in its strangely narrow cockpit and upright windscreen - it's ancient in its utter solidity and feeling of being honed for decades. The gearchange, for instance, is a masterwork in solid fluidity, with not a trace of excess movement in its short action.

The driving position is perfect, the large wheel placed just where you want it. And then there's the engine out the back, that mighty 480bhp twin-turbo straight six, utterly unburstable and awesome in its power, slamming the car forward with indomitable force, all four wheels clawing the road. The 911 Turbo is still a player, vast in its all-round ability, docile when it needs to be, fast as well.

But driving these two cars back-to-back, it's not long before you realise that the Nissan makes it seem old-fashioned. The GT-R's balance and body control is extraordinary through faster, bumpy bends that will have the 911 unsettled enough to have the driver lose confidence - not only a good driver, but a fairly regular enthusiast driver like myself.

I had a number of heart-in-mouth moments in the Turbo trying to keep up with the GT-R, even with the Porsche's suspension set to its harder 'sport' setting. It still seems soft, and there's a bouncy lack of balance in the way the suspension controls the body, and the way the big engine slung out the back threatens to swing round. By contrast, I never felt anything but natural solidity in the Nissan, adjustable and fluid.

The GT-R turns in beautifully, whether neutral or under brakes, and grips forever - slippery surfaces seem to bring out the best in it. Time after time I left Turner behind as my four-wheel-drive system and traction control worked better out of wet corners - it wasn't just the fact that I could get on the power earlier. It was about confidence.

The Nissan really is something special, and you get the impression that while a master driver could wring every last ounce of performance out of the 911, your mother could do the same in the GT-R. And all the while, making lightning fast up- and down-changes in milliseconds while the Porsche driver messes with manual.

Does the Nissan's ability reduce the driving pleasure? Not at all. You can turn all the systems off if you so choose, and it's still supremely well balanced, no doubt a delight for a racing driver on a track.

It doesn't feel as heavy as it is - it weighs a chunky 1740kg, 80kg more than the Porsche. But its supreme N?rburgring lap time of 7:38, a full two seconds faster than the Turbo (and on a partly wet track), is solely down to its completely planted feel, its awesome grip and traction, and the natural way it goes about maintaining speed through corners.

It feels high, almost on tip-toe in comparison to the 911, but that's because it is. It's a big car. But it's not slow. Our 'bahn tests proved that.

'For all-round ability, the Nissan is the best car I've ever driven. It is almost as fast as the Porsche'

From medium revs in fourth gear, with me driving the Nissan and with a passenger on board, the radio countdown allowed us to nail the throttles simultaneously with the cars side-by-side. Turner's Porsche crawled forward, and I mean crawled, v-e-r-y slowly. It only highlights the supernatural performance of the GT-R.

For all-round ability, I have no doubt the Nissan is the best car I've ever driven. It is almost as fast as the Porsche - which means it's almost as fast as any car on earth - and inspires more confidence through corners, yet it's also more roomy and practical and has a proper modern gearbox.

It's a big, solid car you can rely on when the going gets tricky, that you can thrash around a track, then set the suspension to soft, the transmission to auto, the Bose audio to full bass and potter into town without a trace of angst.

Oh, I nearly forgot - price. The 911 Turbo comes in at about ?100,000, which is good value for such a stupendous car, but the GT-R will cost about ?40,000 less than that when it goes on sale in the UK in 2009.

Mizuno-san is right. This car has no competitors. Not at any price. But that won't prevent one of the first GT-Rs in Europe being bought by an anonymous man and taken to Porsche AG in Stuttgart for a thorough examination. With an even more powerful and lighter V Spec GT-R on the way, Porsche can't afford to lag behind for long.

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2007/12/stories/12/1.html

 

[hansvonaxion]

Thanks for the info.

It wont be long until those euphemisms turn into criticisms, like bone-jarring ride.

One more thing to keep in mind, if you remember Fifth Gear did a comparo of the Audi TT with DSG and manual (I know it isnt very scientific) and over a 2 minute lap the DSG came out nearly 0.5sec ahead. The DSG equipped car is 20kg heavier yet faster to 62mph.

I dont think its out of the question that the gearbox could be worth a couple of seconds on the 'ring.

 

[marcos_eirik]

I dont think its out of the question that the gearbox could be worth a couple of seconds on the 'ring.

Yes, the 997 Turbo for instance accellerates faster with the five speed Tiptronic S than the manual, and that's an old fashioned automatic with a torque converter, no fancy double clutch stuff. It's simply because it allows you to pre load the system with torque, meaning no wheelspin or bogging down when setting off.

 

[ahpadt]

Isn't this thread getting a bit out of hand?

 

[thedguy]

Yes, the 997 Turbo for instance accellerates faster with the five speed Tiptronic S than the manual, and that's an old fashioned automatic with a torque converter, no fancy double clutch stuff. It's simply because it allows you to pre load the system with torque, meaning no wheelspin or bogging down when setting off.

Not to mention the computer controlled hydraulics in an automatic can shift the transmission faster than any human can ever hope to shift a manual. At least if they are setup to allow it. It's one of many reasons why drag racers eventually switch to automatic transmissions with special valve bodies.

That also should explain why there are people proud of the fact that they have full H-pattern 6 speed manual car running in the 8's or faster (record is 7.8sec I think).