Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Nissan GT-R 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
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)
|
|
|---|---|
|
Sorry to interupt the "Nissan says" vs. "Porsche says" war, but since I finally got to run my GT2 against a GT-R Thursday afternoon, I thought I'd report the results. The GT-R is owned by a long time car collecting friend and was one of the inagural 25 GT-R's delivered to a private owner in the country. His stable of cars still includes a Lamborghini Countach, Maserati Merak, Porsche 930 and Acura NSX among 10+/- others. We took the cars out to a private airstrip that I have access to. Both cars are fairly well broken in, mine with 4,000+ miles, his with almost 3,000. We did a few practice runs at out to about 3/8 mile and then went at it, head to head for 3 runs driving our own car and 2 more runs driving each other's car. Up to approximately 750 to 1,000 feet, the lead depended upon who got the best start. If the race stopped there, it was 3-2 in favor of the GT-R. But after about 1,000 feet (shift from 2nd to 3rd in the GT2), the GT2 clearly had more power and even with my friend shifting it more gingerly than me, was ahead by 1,500 +/- feet. By 2,400 feet, the end of our run, the GT2 was anywhere from 75 to 150+ feet ahead and pulling away. Every single time, no matter who was driving. And guess what? That "adds up", given that the GT2 is nearly 700 pounds lighter is rated at 50 more horsepower and 75 more ft.lbs of torque. No rocket science degree needed here, but just in case, I happen to have one. Round two will be held sometime next spring at Summit Point Raceway, where we rent the track for a day annually with a group and have some friendly wagers on who can post the best lap time and live to brag about it. That's more a test of the driver than the car, but we agreed to swap again to try to make it objective. What does our little friendly unofficial test mean, objectively, subjectively, rationally, irrationally, logically, illogically?? You can decide. I certainly didn't buy a GT2 just to have airstrip/dragstrip bragging rights. Nor did my friend buy his GT-R for that purpose. I don't feel the slightest bit bigger, larger or huge-er for having "won" and he's certainly not crying because he "lost". But for a certain poster that has a bevy of narcisistic, arrogant and insulting tendencies, maybe it's time for you to upgrade your attitude. And perhaps consider cutting your posts in half and use the extra hour or two a day to focus on your career so you can drive the car of your choice, instead of reading reviews ad nauseum and posing as a couch potato authority. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: spiritinthesky (Oct 04, 2008 3:40 am) Versus pretentious for yourself and others. You know nothing about me. And that bullcrap just doesn't fly in the real world. Its laughable, because from what I know of you, you'd probably be surprised how far along the exact same path I am despite being several decades behind in age. We're not so different, you and I. A fact you'd probably never want to agree to. But a fact nonetheless. And as for your 'adding up'? Nobody in their right mind would have claimed the GT2 isn't faster than the GT-R in a straight line past a certain distance. Probability is 100% in the favor of Porsche on that one. No use arguing that against me, I'm in agreement. Just not when it comes to it 'adding up' in favor of Porsche's claim. As for arrogant and insulting, I'd like to point out that the 'irrational' comment, along with others pot-shots, were first directed at me. I'm sorry if the user didn't know what the word meant. I'm sorry that the information presented by the majority party is typically the opposite of reality. I'm also sorry if the 'gang' can dish it but can't take it. I do not, however, apologize in that having to do a lot of research for said business, I happen to bookmark information that I find interesting, if not useful. Posting is a break from all that, but the information presented is as factual as I can make it. If fact is not interesting to this group, just say so. It wouldn't be the first time they preferred subjective to the objective, and would prove my point about rationality. Based on probability the GT2 has a very good chance of beating the GT-R with a track time. Its a fast car, no misconceptions about that. The same logic does not apply to the Turbo. I would expect your friends' GT-R to make a good showing, not total domination on either side. Are you capable of shutting up about me and presenting hard fast times when it comes? Like I said, I would be curious to see what you discover.
|
|
| This is about cars, not posters. | |
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Oct 04, 2008 5:20 am) Some people say they are just jealous, others think they are right. I'm siding with the latter. As I mentioned before, the times that Nissan posted never made sense to me for the exact same reasons that Porsche questioned them. I was pleased to see that I wasn't crazy.
|
|
|
Replying to: madmanmoo (Oct 06, 2008 4:44 am) Did everyone see the heavily modified GT-R in Car & Driver this month? I thought we had decided that this car couldn't be modified due to its complicated computer system? It whipped up on the others. One other thing - the big difference between the GT-R Porsche tested and all the magazine and Nissan tested cars is that Porsche purchased a car that nobody knew would be tested. Maybe they got a dud, but I doubt it. Here is an article that sheds some light on some of those early test cars. |
|
|
|
|
I presented Porsche's test of the vehicle and certainly believe them. Their engineers questioned the exact same things that I questioned. That was the reason I brought it to the table. Not fact. Speculation. You are siding with 'myth', and 'rumor.' And it is quite illogical indeed to present that as fact. 'Questioning' is not fact. That's a really odd post there. Here is an article that sheds some light on some of those early test cars. Nope. You got that one backwards too. Thats just the author adding spin to Car & Driver's words. Car & Driver is the one you should believe when Car & Driver does the testing. Here's C&D's conclusion that your author decided to reverse on his mini-blog: Though we didn’t get a chance to dyno-test the two slower GT-Rs, three of the five were so close in performance that we believe they accurately represent the GT-R’s capability. Clearly, Nissan is delivering more than the advertised 480 horsepower. Even though C&D went out to prove the 'ringer' theory, they agreed with Nissan in the end. They agree the slower cars were the pre-production ones, the fast ones were all production-spec. No evidence supporting the 'ringer' theory and Car & Driver agrees with Nissan. If you don't understand dyno testing, you shouldn't be presenting it as fact. Just like that ' trap speed wheel horsepower calculator sanity check', that guys spin-factor makes that a useless article. We already had this discussion and you reversed your opinion that Nissan was overrating to underrating the GT-R, similar to how Porsche underrates their cars. I am a middle-aged accountant for gawd's sake. There is probably a picture of me next to both rational and logical in a dictionary somewhere. OMG! Wow, Seriously? Funny and illogical post there. One does not stem from the other. If I want some accounting facts, I'll know who to come to  On this forum you present a lot of illogical stuff. And the complete opposite of fact. Repeatedly. No offense, but thats a really off statement. Again, say it as many times as you want, rationality and logic are not on your side for this conversation.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Oct 06, 2008 7:53 am) The 911 Turbo and GT-R test cars are similar in performance. The 911 is slightly faster in a straight line and the GT-R seems to be slightly faster through corners. On a high speed track, I would speculate that the 911 would be faster. On a tighter track, I would speculate that the GT-R would be faster. Maybe you have me confused with another poster...
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 8:20 am) I'm not presenting anything as 'fact'. I'm presenting a side of the story that I happen to believe. You obviously know more about cars than I do and for some reason that makes you angry. I am simply stating that I side with the Porsche engineers over a random Edmund's poster. Is that irrational and silly?
|
|
|
How about Edmunds' own article stating that 0-60 from a standstill is at 3.9 and getting noticeably worse after 4 runs. The Turbo equipped with Tip does 3.5 seconds and it isn't even a dual clutch system which should shift 60% faster. Just some food for thought. Lots of numbers running around out there. http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2008/09/2009-nissan-gt-r-0-60-in-35-and-274mp- g.html#more |
|
|
Replying to: madmanmoo (Oct 06, 2008 8:53 am) In any case, here is an Edmunds article that shares my point of view - a standard 911 can be considered a more satisfying car than a GT-R.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Nissan GT-R Article Comments - 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan GT-R
2010 Porsche 911
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
