Article Comments - 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo

990 messages, Last post on Sep 05, 2009 at 6:04 AM

You are in the Nissan GT-R Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? Nissan GT-R, Porsche 911, Car Comparisons, Coupe

2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo - Balance and body control of the GT-R are extraordinary through faster, bumpy bends that will have the 911 unsettled enough to make the driver lose confidence. 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. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 67 of 99: 1; ...; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; ...; 99; Prev; Next; Last

#660 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [bigmclargehuge] by spiritinthesky Apr 04, 2008 (2:25 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 03, 2008 5:29 pm) Everything else is your personal opinon. Grow up sonny, most of what you are posting is your personal opinion at best, a regurgitation of other opinions at worst, with what appears to be no real personal experience at all. So while you are proudly admitting to hypocracy in some sort of self deprecating exercise, you might want to reign in your arrogance until you actually get your butt in any of the cars you would like to be an expert on. I am quite familiar with Porsche's "best". I drove a collector friend's 959 back in the early/mid 1990's many times. (He had bought my original 1978 BMW M1). As spectacular as the 959 was for its day, it cost $500k a unit to produce back then and even the street legal version would bust your kidneys over slight road imperfections. Not to mention that it didn't have air conditioning, a single airbag, or power anything. My guess is that after the EPA got done with it, the 2008 version of the 959 would have at least 250+ lbs added to its curb weight. Still a musk ox less than the GT-R, but well more than the 997 GT2. I've also been around Nurburgring's Nordschleife circuit a few times, most recently last fall in a 997 GT3. I posted the best time of any "amateur" driver for the week I was there, but I am not embarassed ot admit it was slightly over 8 minutes. There were no 2-ton AMG's in front of me. And how do you reconcile that SL63's purported time reconcile with an automatic transmission and RWD handicaps?? I have no interest in debating high end sports cars with someone whose expertise is in reading car magazines. I was simply pointing out that among those of us that actually own and drive such cars, it appears that Porsche will have no difficulty charging a $75k premium for the GT2 over the 911TT. For some very good reasons, or, if you prefer, experience based "opinions". Enjoy your reading. Replies to this message: bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 4:22 am) lemmer (Apr 04, 2008 5:31 am) bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 6:01 am) and 2 more... spiritinthesky (Apr 04, 2008 5:59 am)
#661 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [spiritinthesky] by bigmclargehuge Apr 04, 2008 (4:22 am)
Replying to: spiritinthesky (Apr 04, 2008 2:25 am) Getting upset isn't going to prove anything. I'm the engineer, commenting on statistics about cars. You're the driver, bragging about experience. Arrogance is tipping the scales heavily on your side. I've been playing fair all along. I like the GT2, I just think Porsche needs a GT4. Are you seriosly picking on a 20-year old car for not being as comfortable? AMG has some of the most advanced differentials and suspensions in the world. Thats the only reconciliation it needs. It indeed gives up 30hp and 700lbs on the GT2, and still runs about even with it. The reason you didn't see any on the track, is because it was not for sale yet. But at 130K, its a relative bargain. But not to fear, the SLR and the CLK DTM AMG both ran 7:40s. About even with the GT3. Replies to this message: lemmer (Apr 04, 2008 5:31 am) bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 6:01 am) habitat1 (Apr 04, 2008 1:31 pm) and 1 more... spiritinthesky (Apr 04, 2008 5:59 am)
#662 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer Apr 04, 2008 (5:04 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 03, 2008 2:02 pm) Thanks for the complement. I decided I was really taking things off course with that my unedited post.
#663 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer Apr 04, 2008 (5:31 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 4:22 am) In all seriousness, Porsche is usually very careful to preserve a long engine life in all of their cars, including the turbocharged models. I suppose they have some room to jack up the boost with basically no cost (but engine longevity). If they wanted to up the ante, this imight be all it would take. Of course, if you go nuts with the idea, your reputation will take a hit (Gen 3 RX-7 with an 60-80K engine life for example). Replies to this message: bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 6:01 am) habitat1 (Apr 04, 2008 1:31 pm) bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 2:05 pm)
#664 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [bigmclargehuge] by spiritinthesky Apr 04, 2008 (5:59 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 4:22 am) You aren't commenting on statistics, you appear wed to them, conveniently modified with subjective opinion and no experience. I happen to be an engineer as well - and own an engineering consulting company with about 70 professionals on staff. About two thirds of which have post graduate degrees. So "statistics" is not my weak subject. I just have a healthy respect for what the car rags don't measure in their limited 0-60, 1/4 mile and lateral g tests. Take for example your crediting AMG with the best suspensions in the world? Is that something else you read? AMG and BMW's Motorsport are clients of my company and I personally visit their R&D facilities at least 1-2 times a year. While AMG has exceptional in house engineering capabilities, they have been focusing (too) much of that talent in the last decade into putting 500hp engines into everything from the SL to their minivan R class. Their production suspensions are barely up to BMW base standards, let alone the M cars. And that's O.K. - they don't cater to the true driving enthusiast. A S65, CL65 or SL65 w/ 700+ ft.lbs of torque, no problem. Manual transmission in any AMG product - nowhere to be found. AMG doesn't make a sports car, period. You appear to be striving for appointment as the statistically objective voice in this forum. I've limited my comments to about 4 posts, including this one. So have at it, if you wish. But understand that not everyone that reads your posts is incapable of performing their own statistical analysis. And in spite of your purely academic orientation, real driving experience in the world of sports cars isn't a bad thing.
#665 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [lemmer] by bigmclargehuge Apr 04, 2008 (6:01 am)
Replying to: lemmer (Apr 04, 2008 5:31 am) Well, my idea would really be just borrow the GT2's engine. I would hope the engine life would be the same, or that is indeed bad for the marque's reputation. That might be all it would take to put the 911T neck-and-neck to the GT2. The traction added by the AWD system could compensate for its own weight increase. However, I have the Carrera 4's weight at 3157lbs. And the Carrera 2's weight at 3075lbs. Thats only an 82lb difference for the AWD system. So it may be (theory) possible that using the GT2 as a starting point, Porsche could add AWD at less than 100lbs weight penalty for a GT4. AWD traction can compensate for significantly more weight than 100 lbs. So I predict it would actually be faster on a track than a GT2. I'm not sure why I got chastized for theorizing this. With the 959, there was nothing comparable for nearly a decade. It could be done again with many technological improvements. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Apr 04, 2008 1:31 pm) bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 2:05 pm)
#667 of 990 Re: Dyno Testing of GT-R [claires] by bigmclargehuge Apr 04, 2008 (7:27 am)
Replying to: claires (Apr 03, 2008 8:09 pm) Let's say we dyno test a normally aspirated car like a Corvette at sea level. Then we dyno the same Corvette in Denver, where the ambient pressure is roughly 20% lower. Measured power will be roughly 20%, too, because the normally aspirated engine is at the mercy of the elements (literally). It has no means to compensate for the loss in ambient pressure, and its power at altitude drops accordingly. So to get a sea level-equivalent result on a Denver dyno, we "correct" its Denver performance by multiplying by 1.2. Now we do the same tests on a turbocharged engine. The trick with the turbo engine is that it will simply increase the boost pressure to compensate for the reduced ambient pressure. Modern turbo engines have controls that allow them to run the same absolute pressure in the intake manifold, irrespective of the ambient pressure. This is not necessarily true for all turbocharged engines, but it is for the more advanced ones. The Z06 might get 505hp under ideal conditions, but when the conditions are not ideal, it does not have the ability to 'blow' more air. So the convention is to add a correction factor. The 911T and GT-R, might get exactly 480hp over a broader range of temperatures and pressures. So adding that correction factor is not only unnecessary, it is incorrect. I would have thought MT would have mentioned that. Edmunds might be more on-the-ball on this one.
#668 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [bigmclargehuge] by habitat1 Apr 04, 2008 (1:31 pm)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 6:01 am) AWD traction can compensate for significantly more weight than 100 lbs. So I predict it would actually be faster on a track than a GT2. I'm not sure why I got chastized for theorizing this. Seems to me that you are the one chastizing others for expressing opinions based upon actual experience, while you are content to fill this forum with academic theories. I'm not sure if you are afraid that by test driving the cars you are speculating on that you might lose your objectivity, but if you get bold enough to try, test the C2S against a C4S and let us know if you think your theory holds up. Fact is, at the limits, AWD may offer some additional traction benefit. But it doesn't just add 100 lbs to the curb weight, it results in higher drivetrain loss of power and, at least in the case of the 911, has an unquantifiable impact on steering feel. Now please don't chastize me for expressing my opinion about an unquantifiable attribute. I did the same thing when I picked my spouse and it's worked out pretty darn well. Replies to this message: bigmclargehuge (Apr 04, 2008 2:05 pm)
#669 of 990 Re: Not Applicable [habitat1] by bigmclargehuge Apr 04, 2008 (2:05 pm)
Replying to: habitat1 (Apr 04, 2008 1:31 pm) The vultrues are circling. Thats fine that you like the 2wd version better. I never chastized anyone for doing so. I just suggested Porsche could make a better turbocharged 4wd version than the current 911T. And then had to defend my position for some odd reason. I'm happy for you and your spouse? I hope its not every day that you compare them to a car. Fact is, at the limits, AWD may offer some additional traction benefit. But it doesn't just add 100 lbs to the curb weight, it results in higher drivetrain loss of power That doesn't seem to be enough to slow down a 3800lb AWD beast like the GT-R.