Nissan GT-R Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
It seems the race hasn't stopped yet since Nissan's epic debut at the Tokyo Auto show with the 7:29 video as the prelude to the unveiling of the 2009 GTR. In my opinion, it was modestly tuned, and there wasn't a serious emphasis on weight reduction, as Kazutoshi Mizuno added in response to the weight reduction inquiries, "GT-R is a multi-performance supercar" and that the GTR is a supercar for anyone, anytime, anywhere, with even snow in mind, which even influenced their decision in the tires.

I was quite impressed with the initial 7:19 of the ACR, followed by the 7:19 by the Nurburgring edition ZR1, followed shortly after with the 7:14 of the Nurburgring Edition LFA, and now the 7:12 from the ACR.

I was talking on another forum about this and they are more Viper fans, and as I suggested how it would be interesting to see how a modified GTR fares, similarly to how the ACR is a modified track prepped Viper with full weight reduction, the convo went south for my perspective...in favor of the Viper...and not worth the argument. Though I am curious, were Nissan to go balls out on a Spec V Version.

Then I thought about how the R33 was the first production car to lap the ring in under 8 minutes.

Nissan could have easily gone balls to the wall, but rather they are incrementally increasing the performance, starting with model years 2012, then potentially 2013.

It almost seems they are waiting for everyone to blow their load, and then perhaps come back out and try for another good time.

With cars now dipping into the low 7 minute mark, well not too low yet, man it would be badass to see Nissan once again break the next minute barrier.

Considering how the R32 was soon given the nickname Godzilla after obliterating everyone in Japan after it's release for 29 races straight of domination. Then onto Australia for more domination, until they eventually banned it from racing, and when it was actually allowed to race, gave it a huge handicap of added weight until the competitors could catch up.

Then the mark left by the R33 in Nurburg.

I don't know of a huge mark left by the R34 aside being a beautiful car that I wish I owned, and Mine's R34 speaks for itself.

I would love to see Nissan leave a mark of this proportion with the R35, it would be historical.

I feel better now.

I would have said this on the other forum, but I may have been hanged for blaspheme, or even forum terrorism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
It's already been broken, just not by a production car.

(Ferrari tried to pass the 599XX as a 'production-based' car)
Yes, I am thinking production car, 'not production-based', as much as an ACR is considered a production car. As far as they can go while still saying 'production car'.

(of course the Zonda-R has also already run a 6:47)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
24 seconds is a lot of time to shave off and in my opinion, cant be done without seriously compromising the core GTR values. It simply weighs too much. If they can knock off 500 pounds somewhere perhaps it could get closer...
 

·
R36 Member
Joined
·
6,049 Posts
24 seconds is a lot of time to shave off and in my opinion, cant be done without seriously compromising the core GTR values. It simply weighs too much. If they can knock off 500 pounds somewhere perhaps it could get closer...
if they can put real seats (e.g. sparco reclinables) in the GTR and carbon fibre the hood/trunk/roof stock, and then make 600+bhp, I see a stock version doing 7:0X.XX possibly. I don't think Nissan is going for that kind of racecar mentality though, more importance is placed on the touring capabilities afaik.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I think the weight is part of the reason why the GT-R handles so well. Drastically reducing it would compromise its exceptional handling abilities, as it comes stock. There are tradeoffs in this game. As of now, adding power, being more aggressive with the suspension and tire setup seem to be the obvious/easy way of achieving sub-sevens. As we all know, this is a complicated car and cannot be understood by following the game plan of other manufacturers. It's hard to fathom how a 3900 lb, underpowered car does what it does on run-flats to begin with. So to make predictions, to me, is like hitting targets in the dark.
 

·
R36 Member
Joined
·
6,049 Posts
I think the weight is part of the reason why the GT-R handles so well. Drastically reducing it would compromise its exceptional handling abilities, as it comes stock. There are tradeoffs in this game. As of now, adding power, being more aggressive with the suspension and tire setup seem to be the obvious/easy way of achieving sub-sevens. As we all know, this is a complicated car and cannot be understood by following the game plan of other manufacturers. It's hard to fathom how a 3900 lb, underpowered car does what it does on run-flats to begin with. So to make predictions, to me, is like hitting targets in the dark.
removing weight from the highest points in the car and reducing unsprung mass seem to be physically proper things to do - but then again what you said is completely true and it's obviously a complex system... a damn fine job by nissan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
Reducing unsprung weight, IMO, saves wear and tear on your consumables and may slightly affect acceleration, but I haven't seen proof that it improves handling. Not saying its not a good idea or anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Great points. I do appreciate the scope of the project they took on in making such an amazingly well rounded car. They would I'm sure be taking their customers into account for any version they represent in a test like this. And yes, 24 seconds is huge. I just have a feeling it could be reachable, and it would be a tidal wave for sure, with the utmost scrutiny. They may need a surpreme court judge for this one.

It is hard to fathom what it does already with it's horsepower to weight ratio, both the '9-'11 and the '12. When you look at the Top Gear lap time comparisons, and the 0-60, it borders the impossible.

Top Gear
1. 1:10.60 Caparo T1 583 / 575
2. 1:12.80 Ultima GTR 720 720 / 1050
3. 1:15.10 Ariel Atom 500 V8 481 / 550
4. 1:16.20 McLaren MP4-12C 600 / 1434
5. 1: 16:50 Aventador LP700-4 700 / 1575
6. 1:16.80 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport 1199 / 1888
7. 1:17.10: Apollo Sport 700 / 1200
8. 1:17.30 Ascari A10 634 / 1285
9. 1:17.40 Caterham 7 CSR 260 260 / 530
10. 1:17.60 Koenigsegg CCX 806 / 1456
11. 1:17.70 Noble M600 659 / 1277
12. 1:17.80 Pagani Zonda C12-F Clubsport Roadster 650 / 1232
13. 1:17.80 Nissan GT-R (Mk II) 530 / 1736

Fastest 0-60 Production cars
  • 2.5 Ariel Atom V8 2011
  • 2.5 Bugatti Veyron 2005
  • 2.5 Caparo T1 2007
  • 2.6 Orca SC7 2005
  • 2.6 Ultima GTR 2006
  • 2.7 Porsche 911 Turbo S 2011
  • 2.78 SSC Ultimate Aero TT 2010
  • 2.8 Ascari A10 2007
  • 2.8 Nissan R35 GT-R 2012

It seems to break the laws of physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
LOL. Or the layman's understanding of it. You can't hate on a car like this. The people who do just don't understand it.
That is beyond true! When you look at these statistics, it leaves nothing short of awe.
 

·
R36 Member
Joined
·
6,049 Posts
Great points. I do appreciate the scope of the project they took on in making such an amazingly well rounded car. They would I'm sure be taking their customers into account for any version they represent in a test like this. And yes, 24 seconds is huge. I just have a feeling it could be reachable, and it would be a tidal wave for sure, with the utmost scrutiny. They may need a surpreme court judge for this one.

It is hard to fathom what it does already with it's horsepower to weight ratio, both the '9-'11 and the '12. When you look at the Top Gear lap time comparisons, and the 0-60, it borders the impossible.

Top Gear
1. 1:10.60 Caparo T1 583 / 575
2. 1:12.80 Ultima GTR 720 720 / 1050
3. 1:15.10 Ariel Atom 500 V8 481 / 550
4. 1:16.20 McLaren MP4-12C 600 / 1434
5. 1: 16:50 Aventador LP700-4 700 / 1575
6. 1:16.80 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport 1199 / 1888
7. 1:17.10: Apollo Sport 700 / 1200
8. 1:17.30 Ascari A10 634 / 1285
9. 1:17.40 Caterham 7 CSR 260 260 / 530
10. 1:17.60 Koenigsegg CCX 806 / 1456
11. 1:17.70 Noble M600 659 / 1277
12. 1:17.80 Pagani Zonda C12-F Clubsport Roadster 650 / 1232
13. 1:17.80 Nissan GT-R (Mk II) 530 / 1736

Fastest 0-60 Production cars
  • 2.5 Ariel Atom V8 2011
  • 2.5 Bugatti Veyron 2005
  • 2.5 Caparo T1 2007
  • 2.6 Orca SC7 2005
  • 2.6 Ultima GTR 2006
  • 2.7 Porsche 911 Turbo S 2011
  • 2.78 SSC Ultimate Aero TT 2010
  • 2.8 Ascari A10 2007
  • 2.8 Nissan R35 GT-R 2012
It seems to break the laws of physics.
btw, iirc you've got # 12 and 13 in the wrong order, with the GT-R immediately after the Noble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
interesting question..i think at right around 600hp, ceramic brakes, minor suspension tweaks and perhaps a slight weight drop the under 7 minute mark could be easily reached..most of these changes are not so hard to add considering the v spec already has ceramic brakes, the weight drop and suspension tweaks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Nissan has been toying with the competition. They deliver enough each time to blow everybody away and to be newsworthy, but they could have come out with the GTR at 2.9 seconds 0-60 in 2009. However, 3.5 seconds was more than enough to get noticed. There new Nurburgring time will likely be just enough to beat all production cars. But I agree with you that they likely have a sub 7 minute car in the works.
 

·
R36 Member
Joined
·
6,049 Posts
Nissan has been toying with the competition. They deliver enough each time to blow everybody away and to be newsworthy, but they could have come out with the GTR at 2.9 seconds 0-60 in 2009. However, 3.5 seconds was more than enough to get noticed. There new Nurburgring time will likely be just enough to beat all production cars. But I agree with you that they likely have a sub 7 minute car in the works.
I fully agree. As a manufacturer it's not wise to be riding the cutting edge of technology (e.g. AMS or ShepTrans or Switzer, etc.) but it is rather better to schedule products so that you can strategically release. I'm not surprised if Nissan even has a hybrid GT-R already with low weight and whatever. Note that this is fully vaporware lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
I think the weight is part of the reason why the GT-R handles so well. Drastically reducing it would compromise its exceptional handling abilities, as it comes stock. There are tradeoffs in this game. As of now, adding power, being more aggressive with the suspension and tire setup seem to be the obvious/easy way of achieving sub-sevens. As we all know, this is a complicated car and cannot be understood by following the game plan of other manufacturers. It's hard to fathom how a 3900 lb, underpowered car does what it does on run-flats to begin with. So to make predictions, to me, is like hitting targets in the dark.
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I can see your point: more weight means higher levels of grip due to the extra loading on the tires, etc. However, with the proper aero, tires, suspension and traction management, low weight will ALWAYS trump high weight. The GTRs VDC is just particularily good at countering the portly weight but this is not to say that a lower curb weight would hurt the car's perfomance. Less weight to move around requires less power to do the same thing and changing direction will require less grip. All this will equal faster lap times.
 

·
R36 Member
Joined
·
6,049 Posts
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I can see your point: more weight means higher levels of grip due to the extra loading on the tires, etc. However, with the proper aero, tires, suspension and traction management, low weight will ALWAYS trump high weight. The GTRs VDC is just particularily good at countering the portly weight but this is not to say that a lower curb weight would hurt the car's perfomance. Less weight to move around requires less power to do the same thing and changing direction will require less grip. All this will equal faster lap times.
Nissan knows this. I guarantee it, lol
 

·
Fast GT-R
Joined
·
3,129 Posts
if they can put real seats (e.g. sparco reclinables) in the GTR and carbon fibre the hood/trunk/roof stock, and then make 600+bhp, I see a stock version doing 7:0X.XX possibly. I don't think Nissan is going for that kind of racecar mentality though, more importance is placed on the touring capabilities afaik.
IDK......7:0x.xx is still tough for any production cars.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
389 Posts
I agree completely Kreation. Areo mods, (Downforce) play a bigger factor at speed then traction does. Add the extra downforce from the Areo mod's and all of a sudden it balances. (This is my very dumbed down understanding of how it works, I get there are other factors at play, but I believe these are the biggest ones.)

Cheese
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top