Nissan GT-R vs. Ford GT

[alkemyst]

WTF...the ring is a good example of what one could find in most real world scenarios.

Arkaign...you really don't know much about cars. 13 seconds on nur vs 2-4 secs on shorter tracks is A LOT.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF...the ring is a good example of what one could find in most real world scenarios.

Arkaign...you really don't know much about cars. 13 seconds on nur vs 2-4 secs on shorter tracks is A LOT.

He didn't say it wasn't... He just said that the GT-R would be able to put less distance between the Ford on a smaller track, which makes sense...

I don't think you should be so quick to insult people.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF...the ring is a good example of what one could find in most real world scenarios.

Arkaign...you really don't know much about cars. 13 seconds on nur vs 2-4 secs on shorter tracks is A LOT.

He didn't say it wasn't... He just said that the GT-R would be able to put less distance between the Ford on a smaller track, which makes sense...

I don't think you should be so quick to insult people.

That is not the first time. To him it seems he doesn't know how much a full second or two means on these tracks.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF...the ring is a good example of what one could find in most real world scenarios.

Arkaign...you really don't know much about cars. 13 seconds on nur vs 2-4 secs on shorter tracks is A LOT.

He didn't say it wasn't... He just said that the GT-R would be able to put less distance between the Ford on a smaller track, which makes sense...

I don't think you should be so quick to insult people.

That is not the first time. To him it seems he doesn't know how much a full second or two means on these tracks.

What are we even arguing about here? I agree with you, and didn't marginalize the time at all.

To restate, hopefully more clearly, what I feel here :

(1)- The 'Ring is a great example of a complex race course, and includes a near-perfect mix of elements.

(2)- The 'Ring is very long, which amplifies the difference between cars (and drivers).

(3)- Shorter tracks like Laguna and Silverstone, etc, will obviously show a smaller difference in terms of seconds, but because of their similar mix of straights/sweepers/etc, will likely produce the same % of differential between cars. Meaning exactly what I said above.

(4)- Please don't just start insulting me when you misunderstand what I mean. Show above where I discounted in any way the magnitude of several seconds on a typical race course? No, I agreed that the course that this magazine used was NOT a good example of a race course. I agreed that the 'Ring was a great example of a typical race course, only longer. And I agreed that on such courses, a car that might win by 12-14 seconds on the 'Ring will still win by 2-4 seconds on courses that are by scale much smaller. That doesn't discount the magnitude of superiority, it rather reinforces it.

Re-reading my post before you started going haywire, I can see where my point may have been misunderstood somewhat. Heh, it's not everyday I get attacked by someone whom not only I agree with fully here, but actually stated so already. :laugh:

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
This is kind of a dumb test IMO - the course is tiny and includes two hairpins. It is not representative of any kind of real-world driving or even a real road course. It's also amazing to me that they can make two cars this exciting into such a boring film - there's a reason Top Gear is so special compared to innumerable boring American car shows.

so are nurburgring or 1/4 mile times any more indicative of real-world driving?

how often will you be racing someone at stoplights or around canyon roads? oh wait.. both of those are illegal.

For the people that bought the car to drive, not the middle age crisis or because I'm rich ones, I bet you will see it more often than most know about. And who cares that they are illegal, how many people don't wear seatbelts, don't use turn signals, come to complete stops at red light/stop signs, have all the requirments to meet DOT saftey laws if they were pulled over and an inspection was run? All of these can contribute to accidents and death and are Illegal as well.


For cars that have powerful motors but are suppose to handle extrmemely well why not see them tested on tracks, take your rice/muscle or whatever floats your boat that you think is so much better and put it on a track and see how it compares. Then make sure to say you didn't spend x amount or it wasn't built to do that. Well these cars are and thats why they get tested there.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Azelrok
The one thing I dont understand is how come none of these magazine tests are comparing sports cars in different weather conditions and then average all the times. Like wet, dry, and snowy conditions?



I do see sports cars driven in the crappiest of weather conditions. I've seen corvettes on snowy days, which is rare, but I have seen them on a couple of occasions. I havent seen any extremely expensive cars 100k+ but since the GTR is 70k, I have seen corvettes and bmw's etc in bad conditions.

Those conditions are not nearly difficult enough... they should add in sleep deprivation, hypothermia, alcohol, a nagging woman.

Then for the ultimate test they should keep them up for 72 hours straight, mainline two large whiskeys into them, force them to sit in an ice bath for 30 minutes to induce hypothermia then put them in the car with their partner and tell the partner the driver just blew 100k on the car without consulting with them. All that on an icy track with the snow is starting to melt...

Only then, at the end of the test will you truly know which car is the lord of the 'ring...