Rrocket - Yes, I am a 'GM Slappy', but first and foremost I am a 'car slappy' - always have been and always will be. The GTR is an awesome car no doubt about that - but the record run video shows it doing something well beyond what you could expect from that vehicle - keeping up past 140mph with two 600 plus horsepower vehicles for 23 seconds! Lets take the corner out of the equation to make it even more obvious - as there shouldn't be much wheel spin past 140 mph, right? So how again does that tremendous awd system help it at 140 mph going straight ahead?
You own a very fast car - does it make sense to you?
Mitlov - http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/nissan/gt_r/2009_nissan_gt_r/2009_nissan_gt_r_road_test+type-reviews_by_make+mode-collection+id-238.html go there and then click on Spec Sheet. To the best of my knowledge the gearing that is shown on this spec sheet is inline with what the GTR currently has. My CONCERN is that your earlier explination was a 20 mph 'jump' for the GTR to explain away its acceleration down the straightaway based on nothing at all. Nissan only gave us the shifts to indicate speeds and that seems to be pretty accurate as an indicator. Just look at bridge 1 in the GTR and the Zr1:
1st bridge
GTR 6:46 ZR1 6:42
The GTR does the 5th - 6th shift 2 seconds later at 6:48 at 152 mph. So given how fast 'this' GTR accelerates 2 seconds would be approx 8.5mph (based on the GTR gaining 30mph in 7 seconds which occured between the 4th-5th shift and the 5th to 6th shifts) so it was going about 143.5 mph
The ZR1 at 6:42 is going 144 mph.
And then 23 seconds later both of the cars at the same place. Same with the Dodge Viper ACR.
Okay, gotcha. You were looking at the May 2008 preproduction car. A chart with the performance numbers for the five GT-Rs that C&D tested is available on the right side of this page:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/larry_webster/what_is_the_gt_r_s_real_horsepower_column (click on "performance test comparison")
Here's my problem. The May preproduction car had the same horsepower as the production car, but it wasn't identical in every way. Most notably, whereas the 0-60 and 0-100 times were almost identical to the production car, the 0-130 time was remarkably shorter (12.1 seconds for the preproduction GT-R versus 13.7 and 14.0 for the two production cars). Similar acceleration for 0-60 and 0-100, but significantly better acceleration for 0-130, screams to me that
the May preproduction GT-R had shorter gearing in the highest few gears.
So the top-speeds-per-gear for the top few gears from the May preproduction GT-R are almost certainly lower than they are for the production GT-R. Your analysis that the GT-R must have been a ringer because it was going too fast in each gear, while certainly a good argument, is based off of the wrong set of statistics.
So, let's re-cap:
(1) You first argued that the Nurburgring GT-R had to have been a ringer because it was accelerating just as fast as the more-powerful-and-lighter ZR-1 on a straightaway. I showed that the GT-R entered the straightaway going faster, by noting that it traveled the distance from the last inside shoulder strip to the first bridge in six seconds to the Vette's seven. Thus, the GT-R was accelerating more slowly if the two cars covered the distance between the two bridges in the same time.
(2) You then advanced a new argument, saying that the Nurburgring GT-R couldn't be a production GT-R because it was going too fast in 4th and 5th gears to be a production GT-R. Problem is, you used performance numbers from a preproduction GT-R with lower gearing in the higher gears than the production GT-R has.
Do you have any other arguments that the Nurburgring GT-R was a ringer? Because I don't think there's ANY evidence that it was.
