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 89 of 100: 1; ...; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91; 92; ...; 100; Prev; Next; Last

#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...
#881 of 990 Re: [bigmclargehuge] by madmanmoo Oct 10, 2008 (9:22 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Oct 10, 2008 9:00 am) I find it humorous how we can read the same article and get 2 entirely different things out of it. Porsche bought it used. They didn't destroy it. Whoever drove it before them tracked it. And you're buying the story that because the brakes and tires were worn out and it didn't have new fluids in it, that it clocked significantly less speed? Hrm...... It had 3k miles on it. Porsche is very interested to know if the vehicle can do what it claims to. Why? So they can learn from it and get better. Unfortunately, Nissan overstated and aren't happy about it. Brakes? Ya, Brembo makes them for Nissan, not Porsche. They had to cut costs somewhere. You can Nissan Brembos or you can buy Porsche Brembos.... Replies to this message: bigmclargehuge (Oct 10, 2008 9:44 am) madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 10:22 am) lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 10:41 am)
#882 of 990 Re: [madmanmoo] by bigmclargehuge Oct 10, 2008 (9:44 am)
Replying to: madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 9:22 am) I don't find it humorous at all. The conclusion you draw is again the exact opposite of the article being presented. "Brembo is the first name in high performance braking. OEM suppliers to Porsche and Ferrari" "Brembo brakes are standard equipment on supercar marques such as Aston Martin, Audi, Ferrari, Maserati, Mercedes-Benz, Pagani and Porsche cars" Brembo supplied OEM brakes for the Carrera GT. Porsche puts a "Porsche" sticker on Brembo parts. Woohoo! Yeah, we don't 'cut corners' at all. We'd never use crappy Brembos. So much better than Nissan's brakes... oh, wait. No, you're 100% backwards. Again! And how exactly would 'Porsche Brembos' be any better? Racing is tough on brakes, no matter what car they come on. 'Better' brakes on supercars are measured in stopping distance. I'd say the Carbon Fiber brake rotors on F1 cars are probably 'better' than the Carbon Ceramics on the Turbo. And yet they replace them every 1000 miles of F1 racing.... hmmmm. So what makes you think just because Porsche tested a trashed car (and I don't care who trashed it, looks like it was trashed around their 'record' lap) that it makes it a 'Nissan overstated' scenario? And you're buying the story that because the brakes and tires were worn out and it didn't have new fluids in it, that it clocked significantly less speed? It's your story! And instead of developing a NEW conspiracy theory I'll take Edmunds' word over your interpretation. And at the very least, if they didn't have a fresh set of tires, yes I absolutely do believe they would clock a slower time. First all the Porsche siders said it must be the tires... well, maybe that was true... Nissan didn't use chewed up tires. Cheaters! If Porsche couldn't tell there was something wrong with that particular car, they aren't interested in 'making anything better.' They're smart enough to look up required maintenance. They obviously chose not to. Replies to this message: madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 10:22 am) lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 10:41 am)
#883 of 990 Re: [bigmclargehuge] by madmanmoo Oct 10, 2008 (10:22 am)
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Oct 10, 2008 9:44 am) I find it humorous that you don't find any humor in this. Brembo does indeed manufacture them, to Porsche specifications. They have specific patents for the Porsche design. I will say again, not all Brembos are created equal. You won't find a set of Porsche Brembos burning out after 3k miles. The Nissan Spec-V has Brembos on them, do you think they are the same as the GT-R's? Your argument is hollow at best. So what makes you think just because Porsche tested a trashed car (and I don't care who trashed it, looks like it was trashed around their 'record' lap) that it makes it a 'Nissan overstated' scenario? Nissan overstated their lap times on the Nurburgring or didn't use factory settings. That's what they overstated. It's your story! And instead of developing a NEW conspiracy theory I'll take Edmunds' word over your interpretation. Now you've lost me. I wasn't the author on that story. Someone from Edmunds was.... What are you talking about? And you think that they put their driver in danger by not putting on a new set of tires? Man, you have been drinking way too much of that KoolAid. Run away!!! You're in danger!! If Porsche couldn't tell there was something wrong with that particular car, they aren't interested in 'making anything better.' They're smart enough to look up required maintenance. They obviously chose not to. The humor still persists. Again, they bought it secondhand. They went and got the maintenance done on the vehicle before racing. Learn reading comprehension. Replies to this message: lemmer (Oct 10, 2008 10:41 am)
#884 of 990 Re: [madmanmoo] by lemmer Oct 10, 2008 (10:41 am)
Replying to: madmanmoo (Oct 10, 2008 10:22 am) It seems Porsche was no more successful afterward, I took this to mean that even after Nissan got the car back into top working condition, Porsche didn't achieve a time any better than they had earlier in the day. I agree with Moo about the Brembos. Brakes that hold up to repeated track use are one of the many things that separate a Porsche from a Nissan.