Jump to content
SAU Community

Porsche Claims Nissan Cheated On Nurburg


Recommended Posts

http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/motoring...?referrer=email

jelous or what. I saw a couple weeks back they did a comparison lap around a race track in europe and the GTR was 10 seconds faster than the turbo porsche by about 10 seconds with the same driver..

they just have to face Nissan have spent good time into making a great performer and accept that a Nissan has outdone alot of makes. Even the mclaren.

Edited by BANGN
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If they lied about the lap times then why does the GTR continue to spank the 911 turbo in all the Press run comparisons on other tracks? haha

If it was actually 25seconds slower than the turbo around the ring then it should be beaten on any other track also and this doesn't seem to be happening does it?

So yep sour grapes if you ask me. Maybe Porsche are trying to save a few sales from being lost to the GTR by putting a bit of doubt in the mind of potential customers?

Sour grapes.

Every comparison I have seen (Even Top Gear Australia last night) the GTR has out-done the Porsche. The funniest thing from last night's will be the claim that it was the Haltech GTR, so it was modified. Funny bit, even modified it would still be a cheaper can than the Porsche, just as reliable, and most importantly, it FLOGGED THE PORSCHE.

B.

If they lied about the lap times then why does the GTR continue to spank the 911 turbo in all the Press run comparisons on other tracks? haha

If it was actually 25seconds slower than the turbo around the ring then it should be beaten on any other track also and this doesn't seem to be happening does it?

So yep sour grapes if you ask me. Maybe Porsche are trying to save a few sales from being lost to the GTR by putting a bit of doubt in the mind of potential customers?

It was 25 sec's off Nissan's time, not the Turbo's time.

This is the same thing that occurred with the 33 GT-R when it ran around the ring. Is it true? Who knows...

Brian: That was a Carrera S, not a turbo. Not taking anything away from the GT-R, but let's not get carried away.

okay they say that they got a car from the US and kept it dead stock... so did they remove the 250km/h limiter from the USDM gtr? i have no idea about nurburgring but how much of a difference would the 250km/h limiter make compared to the 300km/h unlimited GTR?

also they say that nissan were using semi slicks, what R comps were available at the time when nissan set the 7:29? (serious question, not being sarcastic, but i was thinking that they just used re070's or dunlops as 20 inch r comps were rare...)

anyway it'll be interesting to see nissan's reply to this.

Tyres. Simple as that.

So your saying every GTR tested against the 911 has had the tyres changed to racing compounds? I don't think so, if they did that why wouldn't they also change the 911's tyres?

I think like Sandeep is right, its more likely that the GTR that porsche used still had the speed limiter on it as they couldn't get out of 3rd gear (as stated by Sewid) and thats why they couldn't match the time.

To be honest I don't think it matters anyway

Edited by Scottydoo

In the unlikely event that anyone from nissan japan (not nissan aust, you just suck) is reading this, go out and buy a 911 turbo take it to the track with an ex porsche race driver (or even better, current driver) and get him to do back to back laps with the 911 and the r35. Once the gtr has won, send a DVD including a close up of the tyres to avoid any bitching from porsche, of the full lap to porsche ag head office and send a copy to top gear england. Sorted.

Quite extraordinary, obviously Porsche are worried and trying to justify their way overpriced fried egg. Seriously though, Nissan should sue them claiming damages, arrogant krauts need to be taught a lesson.

So your saying every GTR tested against the 911 has had the tyres changed to racing compounds? I don't think so, if they did that why wouldn't they also change the 911's tyres?

I think like Sandeep is right, its more likely that the GTR that porsche used still had the speed limiter on it as they couldn't get out of 3rd gear (as stated by Sewid) and thats why they couldn't match the time.

To be honest I don't think it matters anyway

Dude you nailed it on the head. i didnt quite realise when i first read what Porsche said.

as they couldn't get out of 3rd gear

the top of third is speed limiter. noob porsche idiots...

LOL! Does anyone see the real problem here?

They had a porsche engineer driving a nissan and he couldnt drive it fast enough. They shouldve given the driving duties to someone who is good at their jobs. Clearly porsche engineers are a bit lacking at their jobs. If they werent, the 911 turbo would've won in all the major independant tests

In the unlikely event that anyone from nissan japan (not nissan aust, you just suck) is reading this, go out and buy a 911 turbo take it to the track with an ex porsche race driver (or even better, current driver) and get him to do back to back laps with the 911 and the r35. Once the gtr has won, send a DVD including a close up of the tyres to avoid any bitching from porsche, of the full lap to porsche ag head office and send a copy to top gear england. Sorted.

Even better meet VW at the track with Suzuki San and let him loose in the car they got 7:54 out of... and then if it misses the time pull it apart and see how many kilos of lead they stuffed into it...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...