-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
GT2 vs GT-R @ The Ring!!
- Thread starter Housey
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,259
rightly so
Another nice write up by DR. No surprise that the Porsche wins with both a power and weight advantage, even so it's a very convincing defeat by a 2WD in poor conditions.
I always wonder though, why does this comparison between GTR and GT2 exist? Surely the real comparison should be with the 911 Turbo, which is similar power, AWD and is more of a usable daily...
I always wonder though, why does this comparison between GTR and GT2 exist? Surely the real comparison should be with the 911 Turbo, which is similar power, AWD and is more of a usable daily...
Excellent article it raised some very valid points, thoroughly enjoyed that; first DR article i've ever read.
As much as I like the GT-R I can imagine the "omg i'm going to die if I don't play my cards right" factor of the GT2 being more up my street.
As posted above, although the internet is going GTR Vs GT2 crazy, you can't really compare them imo.
Will this article shut the fanboiz up though?
As much as I like the GT-R I can imagine the "omg i'm going to die if I don't play my cards right" factor of the GT2 being more up my street.
As posted above, although the internet is going GTR Vs GT2 crazy, you can't really compare them imo.
Will this article shut the fanboiz up though?
Saying things like:
Makes you appear like one though.
Totally understand your reasons, but you can't really compare the two. The GT2 isn't really a car you'd want to drive everday on all roads/conditions, where as the GT-R is, it's not a fine tuned track weapon, I don't think it was ever supposed to be one.
This is a good win for Drivers Republic as it's appearing all over the world as the 'latest' on the Nissan v Porsche discussion and will get them some subscribers I suspect. It's a good article from Chris Harris too arguably their best bit of work to date on the DR site. Of course in real terms it's pointless and it won't silence any fanboys due to the fact that ALL fanboys are idiots who loose any form of objectiveness and because of this should be added to your ignore list as quickly as possible.
My view on this discussion has really been focused on one point. Did Nissan fib about the state of the car they used for THAT laptime. We can all see a GT-R did the time but that is all we can see the rest is conjecture and spin based on a massive multinational trying to get airtime for its new toy. At this Nissan has taught the world a lesson based on the 'any news is good news' approach. They have produced a car of amazing value, pace and technology that moves the mass produced game on and has got everyone looking at themselves which is good for people like me who buy cars like this. They are ensuring that everyone has to improve their breed and also Porsche has to start engineering first and marketing second, something they have been getting the wrong way around for a number of years now.
The GT-R used by DR was actually owned by a UK tuner and at points in its life has not been standard I have read, though I have no idea if it was put back to the standard ECU settings for this test. I do know that the GT2 (as one would expect) was quite a bit quicker on the straight bits and that there is NO WAY that the GT-R used for this test would get close to a 7.29 even with trick rubber unless it had a LOT more power.
As I said months back...."don't get caught up in the hype, don't take anything an interested party tells you at face value and wait and see as once the independents get hold of the cars side by side the truth about Nissan's claims will become clearer." This is the first such test and I expect the others that will follow will form a simliar conclusion. Great car, great value, very fast, not 'quite' as fast as Nissan claims for the 'production' versions. Still a GT2 is not a £70K better car, but at this level of the market the same can be said of anything. A GT2 is 'probably' as quick as a Zonda but I'd still own the Zonda over the GT2 without a second of thought, as I would a GT2 over the Nissan. Nissan aimed at the 911 Turbo and in doing so claimed it quicker than the GT2 which is why this test was done. The Turbo would probably have lapped around the same time as the GT-R in this test so Nissan have hit the nail on the head to perfection it would seem.
My view on this discussion has really been focused on one point. Did Nissan fib about the state of the car they used for THAT laptime. We can all see a GT-R did the time but that is all we can see the rest is conjecture and spin based on a massive multinational trying to get airtime for its new toy. At this Nissan has taught the world a lesson based on the 'any news is good news' approach. They have produced a car of amazing value, pace and technology that moves the mass produced game on and has got everyone looking at themselves which is good for people like me who buy cars like this. They are ensuring that everyone has to improve their breed and also Porsche has to start engineering first and marketing second, something they have been getting the wrong way around for a number of years now.
The GT-R used by DR was actually owned by a UK tuner and at points in its life has not been standard I have read, though I have no idea if it was put back to the standard ECU settings for this test. I do know that the GT2 (as one would expect) was quite a bit quicker on the straight bits and that there is NO WAY that the GT-R used for this test would get close to a 7.29 even with trick rubber unless it had a LOT more power.
As I said months back...."don't get caught up in the hype, don't take anything an interested party tells you at face value and wait and see as once the independents get hold of the cars side by side the truth about Nissan's claims will become clearer." This is the first such test and I expect the others that will follow will form a simliar conclusion. Great car, great value, very fast, not 'quite' as fast as Nissan claims for the 'production' versions. Still a GT2 is not a £70K better car, but at this level of the market the same can be said of anything. A GT2 is 'probably' as quick as a Zonda but I'd still own the Zonda over the GT2 without a second of thought, as I would a GT2 over the Nissan. Nissan aimed at the 911 Turbo and in doing so claimed it quicker than the GT2 which is why this test was done. The Turbo would probably have lapped around the same time as the GT-R in this test so Nissan have hit the nail on the head to perfection it would seem.
The 997 GT's are a hell of a lot more compliant on public roads when compared to the 996 versions. The GT2 would be a fantastic day to day car if you ask me and I was amazed how poised it felt, just like the 997 GT3 and GT3RS when compared to my 996 GT3. Focus was on making a good road car first that could be tweaked for the track instead of a track car that you could drive to the track on the road.
I see. I think my post didn't really get my point accross. I've never driven a GT* so your view is much appreciated.
What I actually meant was probably better summed up by the article
"This is not a car you can grab by the scruff and bully"
Which the GT-R is (from what i've read anyway). Similar to the RS* in the sense that you can drive it a lot quicker, with less skill and with more confidence?
That's the impression i get from the stuff i've read (I may well be wrong).