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 88 of 99: 1; ...; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91; ...; 99; Prev; Next; Last

#871 of 990 by bigmclargehuge Oct 06, 2008 (7:53 am)
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. Replies to this message: lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 8:20 am) madmanmoo (Oct 06, 2008 8:53 am) lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 11:04 am) and 2 more... bigmclargehuge (Oct 06, 2008 12:53 pm)
#872 of 990 Re: [bigmclargehuge] by lemmer Oct 06, 2008 (8:20 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Oct 06, 2008 7:53 am) Here are my only conclusions so far: 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... Replies to this message: madmanmoo (Oct 06, 2008 8:53 am) lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 11:04 am) lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 5:57 am) and 1 more... bigmclargehuge (Oct 06, 2008 12:53 pm)
#873 of 990 Re: [lemmer] by madmanmoo Oct 06, 2008 (8:53 am)
Replying to: lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 8:20 am) Must be me he's confusing you with. I'm not so sure why this discussion has gone off the deep end. 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? Replies to this message: lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 11:04 am) lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 5:57 am) madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 6:09 am)
#874 of 990 Would you believe Edmunds? by madmanmoo Oct 06, 2008 (9:42 am)
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
#875 of 990 Re: [madmanmoo] by lemmer Oct 06, 2008 (11:04 am)
Replying to: madmanmoo (Oct 06, 2008 8:53 am) I think we got lumped into one big person. 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. Replies to this message: lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 5:57 am) madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 6:09 am)
#876 of 990 Re: [lemmer] by bigmclargehuge Oct 06, 2008 (12:53 pm)
Replying to: lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 8:20 am) I've been dividing my posts into halves, since you two seem to be able to finish each others' sentences . Just kidding. I'm too lazy to scroll back up to who said what. For that, I apologize. And since I'm already making a habit of it, you're going to get one lump response again, sorry to say. As for high-speed tracks, it is almost certainly the reverse of your estimate. The GT-R excels on high-speed tracks. On low-speed tracks and autocross courses, the GT2 beats the GT-R hands-down. Thats because of the acceleration difference. Having to slow down means having to speed up again. Check out RT's 4-track race. The GT-R I believe was second only to the Viper ACR on the high-speed cornering track. On the low-speed tracks where accel mattered, it didn't rank as high. The GT2 dominated where top speed mattered, the donut. If 0-60 is what matters to you, by all means go ahead and declare the Turbo the winner. But on high-speed courses, the GT-R owns this comparison. Thats happened enough times already.
#877 of 990 Re: [lemmer] by lemmer Oct 10, 2008 (5:57 am)
Replying to: lemmer (Oct 06, 2008 11:04 am) Interesting article. It sounds like Porsche and Nissan did everything they could to make it go faster. My guess is that Nissan can get a stock one to go faster than Porsche's time, but not a 7:29. Considering everything, Sport Auto's time of 7:50 (with one damp corner) seems to be pretty realistic. Replies to this message: madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 6:09 am)
#878 of 990 Re: [lemmer] by madmanmoo Oct 10, 2008 (6:09 am)
Replying to: lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 5:57 am) You beat me to the punch. I read that and kind of laughed. Edmunds seems so biased at times. Speaking of bias, Car and Driver is the biggest joke of a magazine. When the GT-R beat out the GT2 in their article they graded on items like backseat storage, trunk space and rebates....... Are they smoking crack? They are sports cars, not family trucksters. In regards to the GT-R article. The brakes were already destroyed at 3k miles? What a hunk of shit. Nissan can say what they want, but that doesn't surprise me a bit. There are rumors of recurring engine problems as well. Nissan can say what they want, but I'm still siding with the Porsche folks (no bias whatsoever, I'm sure).
#879 of 990 Re: My Test [spiritinthesky] by spiritinthesky Oct 10, 2008 (6:16 am)
Replying to: spiritinthesky (Oct 04, 2008 3:40 am) As a follow up to our little competition, my friend and I had our cars tested on an independent racing shop dyno Wednesday. His GTR: 372 hp at the wheels My GT2: 465+ hp at the wheels Assuming Nissan is accurate in rating the GTR at 40 hp at the crank, that is a 22% drivetrain loss. Fro the GT2, which is rated at 530, that is an 12% loss. AWD systems typically add 5% +/- loss, so thqat explains about half of the discrepency. This is the only GT-R the shop has tested, but the owner has spoken with several other dyno shops and the word on their street is that GT-R's are "pot luck", ranging from under 350hp to nearly 400hp at the wheels. However, none that he is aware of have achieved 410+ hp at the wheels. Again, this is anecdotal evidence, but it does suggest some serious independent testing of randomly selected production models is in order. On the subjective front, I can go one step farther on the "satisfying drive" front. My friend drove a Cayman S last week and offered that it was a heck of a lot more fun to toss around some winding roads than his "behemouth" GT-R. His assessment is that the GT-R, with it's AWD and excellent suspension engineering and "planted" feel is an impressive performer at the absolute limits - but in most driving conditions, the 3,800+ lb curb weight and lack of lower speed nimbleness is a detraction to satisfaction. His words, not mine. I'm not sure if anyone here is actually considering buying one of these cars, but my advice is to take a lot of test drives before writing a check. They "feel" nearly as different as a Mercedes SL65 and a Ferrari 430. And for some, myself included, that's more important than a couple of seconds either way at Nurburgring.
#880 of 990 Guilty until proven innocent? by bigmclargehuge Oct 10, 2008 (9:00 am)
435rwhp on 91 octane. 411whp on Mustang Dyno with 100 octane 472 at the hubs (less resistance than at the wheels, but more than at the crank) 457whp on 96 octane 419hp on 91/100 octane blend Not one report on NAGTROC of an overrated GT-R. They ALL seem to line up with the 520bhp estimate. It may not be the GT-Rs that are 'pot luck' but the testers. What dyno was in use? And yes, that matters. Does the shop tested at have a website? Name? The brakes were already destroyed at 3k miles? What a hunk of shit. Nissan can say what they want, but that doesn't surprise me a bit. Uhhh... they're Brembos. "Vehicle manufacturers using Brembo components include BMW, Porsche and Ferrari" I don't think the brakes are the problem. Seems the drivers and mechanics in Porshce's little experiment aren't really fond of the car. The only funny thing about the article is how Porsche's intention is obviously to NOT come up with a good result. Unbiased, my rear bumper. Porsche is playing games, and you'll grasp at anything. I would find it embarrasing that Porsche got caught destroying the car they were 'testing'. And that they released to the press this little experiment as 'evidence' to anything. Replies to this message: madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 9:22 am) bigmclargehuge (Oct 10, 2008 9:44 am) madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 10:22 am) and 13 more...