Porsche accuses Nissan of cheating at Nurburgring

[Pariah]

(1)- Odometer readings are meaningless when in context of ring times.

When showing a trail of dishonesty and deception by the company, it is absolutely relevant.

Controversial, but cheating?

Seriously, you're arguing semantics? Cheating for one, dishonest by another, does it matter what you call it?

It's in the range of the 7:58 set with the R34, which makes sense as they are incredibly similar.

It's not noted on the link you posted, but that wasn't a production spec car. Wasn't claimed to be, so no foul play there.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pariah

(1)- Odometer readings are meaningless when in context of ring times.

When showing a trail of dishonesty and deception by the company, it is absolutely relevant.

Controversial, but cheating?

Seriously, you're arguing semantics? Cheating for one, dishonest by another, does it matter what you call it?

It's in the range of the 7:58 set with the R34, which makes sense as they are incredibly similar.

It's not noted on the link you posted, but that wasn't a production spec car. Wasn't claimed to be, so no foul play there.

Blah, you're so biased it's not even funny.

The edmunds article did NOT say that Nissan was dishonest, nor did it say that they cheated. Do you have an independent site that confirms it one way or the other? The edmunds article seemed to say that it's controversial, but impossible to know one way or another. It might have been cheating/tweaking, or it might have been a really lucky run by an awesome driver.

'A trail of dishonesty and deception'. PLEASE. If the best you can come up with is they have had cars with buggy/inaccurate odometers, that's a pretty big stretch. How many recalls/problems do you think the average car mfg has on a yearly basis? Do they ALL reflect a 'trail of dishonesty and deception' as a company-wide policy? Get real. Odometers have NOTHING to do with performance.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pariah

(1)- Odometer readings are meaningless when in context of ring times.

When showing a trail of dishonesty and deception by the company, it is absolutely relevant.

Controversial, but cheating?

Seriously, you're arguing semantics? Cheating for one, dishonest by another, does it matter what you call it?

It's in the range of the 7:58 set with the R34, which makes sense as they are incredibly similar.

It's not noted on the link you posted, but that wasn't a production spec car. Wasn't claimed to be, so no foul play there.

Blah, you're so biased it's not even funny.

The edmunds article did NOT say that Nissan was dishonest, nor did it say that they cheated. Do you have an independent site that confirms it one way or the other? The edmunds article seemed to say that it's controversial, but impossible to know one way or another. It might have been cheating/tweaking, or it might have been a really lucky run by an awesome driver.

'A trail of dishonesty and deception'. PLEASE. If the best you can come up with is they have had cars with buggy/inaccurate odometers, that's a pretty big stretch. How many recalls/problems do you think the average car mfg has on a yearly basis? Do they ALL reflect a 'trail of dishonesty and deception' as a company-wide policy? Get real. Odometers have NOTHING to do with performance.

Let me try to break down what I think he's trying to say:

- Porsche's history with factory-published times and performance figures is historically conservative. Because of this, it's extremely unlikely that they are being intentionally dishonest here.

- Something as simple as tires can explain the discrepancy in GT-R lap times.

- Nissan did not specify the type of tires used in their testing.

ZV

 

[caspur]

As always, I use the comparison of the LP640 in the GTR threads. Lighter, more powerful, far more grip (width of the rears alone are staggering), AWD, etc. Slower around the ring than the GTR. Physics don't lie, someone is cheating.

Nissan has an enormous incentive to cheat. Especially if they can cheat without being caught. Simply put, even if a private production GTR were put on the track and ended up slower, they would simply claim (as many posters are doing here) that the driver was less than competent, or they were running a different compound tire, or perhaps there was some mechanical variance. Nurburgring is not a regulatory agency, so they have no reason to report accurate times, especially if a lower time will help them sell more cars.

 

[Hyperlite]

how many licks.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
the world may never know....

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: caspur
As always, I use the comparison of the LP640 in the GTR threads. Lighter, more powerful, far more grip (width of the rears alone are staggering), AWD, etc. Slower around the ring than the GTR. Physics don't lie, someone is cheating.

Nissan has an enormous incentive to cheat. Especially if they can cheat without being caught. Simply put, even if a private production GTR were put on the track and ended up slower, they would simply claim (as many posters are doing here) that the driver was less than competent, or they were running a different compound tire, or perhaps there was some mechanical variance. Nurburgring is not a regulatory agency, so they have no reason to report accurate times, especially if a lower time will help them sell more cars.

AH, but physics do lie. its called driving dynamics. suspension setups. engine tuning. tyre compound. less weight+more power does not inherently a faster car make.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: caspur
As always, I use the comparison of the LP640 in the GTR threads. Lighter, more powerful, far more grip (width of the rears alone are staggering), AWD, etc. Slower around the ring than the GTR. Physics don't lie, someone is cheating.

Nissan has an enormous incentive to cheat. Especially if they can cheat without being caught. Simply put, even if a private production GTR were put on the track and ended up slower, they would simply claim (as many posters are doing here) that the driver was less than competent, or they were running a different compound tire, or perhaps there was some mechanical variance. Nurburgring is not a regulatory agency, so they have no reason to report accurate times, especially if a lower time will help them sell more cars.

😕

Just for starters, setup, driving dynamics, driver, weather, tires and braking braking braking 😉

That old chestnut 'physics don't lie' doesn't even begin to apply here. Sure, if the cars had identical chassis/suspension/drivers/weather/brakes/drivetrain/were tuned the same but one was much lighter, grippier and more powerful, then 'physics don't lie' is somewhat more valid, but that's not the case here...

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: caspur
As always, I use the comparison of the LP640 in the GTR threads. Lighter, more powerful, far more grip (width of the rears alone are staggering), AWD, etc. Slower around the ring than the GTR. Physics don't lie, someone is cheating.

<blah,snip,blah>

I love how you measure grip levels of a car by the width of the tyre. :roll:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
I honestly believe both times.

The reasoning behind my thinking, is that the GT-R seems to have an unusually wide mechanical variance. Even Car and Driver saw some cars do 11.6 quarter miles while others did 12.6. Nissan probably tested with a fast car, while Porsche got a slow one.

There is no way for a mechanical variance alone to account for that kind of difference. That would be a huge horsepower difference. If you take the driver out of the equation and calculate power by weight and ET, the HP difference would be more than 120 hp.

I think it's more likely that some testers were able to launch the car well, while others couldn't. Either that or Nissan provided some testers with ringers. We don't know since I didn't see the trap speed of those runs posted.

The trap speed is more indicative of power than the ET. For instance, I've run a 13.0@107.5 with a good launch and I've run a 15.something@107 with a poor launch. The trap speed remains pretty consistent though.

 

[Arkaign]

I'll keep updating this thread with evidence and supporting information that shows Porsche to be F.O.S. on this deal.

http://www.caranddriver.com/re...tning_lap_2008_feature

On the 'Ring, CTS-V clocks a 7:59, compare to the 7:54 that Porsche got out of their GT-R.

On the C&D test, CTS-V clocks a 3:04, compare to the 2:55 clocked from the GT-R.

So, on a 4-mile course, the GT-R opens up a nine second lead, and on the 'Ring, the difference is only five seconds? I don't think so. The % separation between the two on the C&D test directly supports the 7:29 vs. 7:59 'Ring times.

That is, unless the tires were Rcomps on the C&D test (they'd mention that, right?).

FURTHER : if you look at the peak speeds/etc on the C&D PDF, you can tell that it's not hitting the same speeds on the straights that the Z51 Vette is, but it consistently holds the curves better. This further supports that they're not sending out abnormally hopped-up ringers out to reviewers, but rather that it's just the way the AWD and chassis/drivetrain design that enable spooky fast track times.

EDIT : LMAO, C&D did the honor of telling us the tires they used, and they are Dunlop Sport 600s, a consumer-level ZR tire. You can get these with your STOCK GT-R.

http://www.gtrnissan.com/specs.en.us.html

What's more, they're actually pretty cheap : ~$200 for the 18-inch version .. though the Nissan ones are 20 inchers.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/...10032115&AID=10398365&

 

[Arkaign]

Nissan fires back : http://www.drive.com.au/Editor...?ArticleID=57410&vf=12

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'll keep updating this thread with evidence and supporting information that shows Porsche to be F.O.S. on this deal.

http://www.caranddriver.com/re...tning_lap_2008_feature

On the 'Ring, CTS-V clocks a 7:59, compare to the 7:54 that Porsche got out of their GT-R.

On the C&D test, CTS-V clocks a 3:04, compare to the 2:55 clocked from the GT-R.

So, on a 4-mile course, the GT-R opens up a nine second lead, and on the 'Ring, the difference is only five seconds? I don't think so. The % separation between the two on the C&D test directly supports the 7:29 vs. 7:59 'Ring times.

Your argument here relies upon the (false) premise that the track used by C&D is comparable to the 'Ring.

In the C&D test, the CTS-V turned in a time of 3:04 on a 4-mile track. The 'Ring is a 13-mile track. If the two tracks were comparable, the CTS-V's time on the 'Ring would be 9 minutes, 58 seconds (3:04 multiplied by 13/4). Yet the CTS-V clocks a time of 7:59 on the 'Ring. Clearly, the two tracks are not similar and play to different setups.

On an autocross course (speeds under 70 mph) the 95 hp Porsche 914 can absolutely obliterate much more powerful 911 Turbos, but change the track setup and the 914 will be far in the Turbos' collective dust.

As tempting as it may be to use one track time to extrapolate another, a car's performance on a given track is only indicative of its performance at that specific track and performance at track A is not a reliable indicator of performance at track B.

ZV

 

[theeedude]

GT-R is a superior vehicle, people just need to get over it. Porsche 911 is limited by the fact that it has to be a 911 first. It has to look like a 911 and have engine in the rear like 911. That puts a lot of constraints on the design that Nissan's engineering team doesn't have to deal with. They designed GT-R from ground up exactly how they wanted it, no holds barred, and they took a hell of a long time to sweat every detail and get it just right. Engine in front, transmission in the back, two drive shafts, trick AWD system, the works. Porsche took an AWD 911 and added Turbos and made it lighter. Great. Nissan could have made a Turbo AWD 350Z too, but they took the time and effort to design a super car from the ground up. Porsche needs to get over their sour grapes.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: senseamp
GT-R is a superior vehicle, people just need to get over it. Porsche 911 is limited by the fact that it has to be a 911 first. It has to look like a 911 and have engine in the rear like 911. That puts a lot of constraints on the design that Nissan's engineering team doesn't have to deal with. They designed GT-R from ground up exactly how they wanted it, no holds barred, and they took a hell of a long time to sweat every detail and get it just right. Engine in front, transmission in the back, two drive shafts, trick AWD system, the works. Porsche took an AWD 911 and added Turbos and made it lighter. Great. Nissan could have made a Turbo AWD 350Z too, but they took the time and effort to design a super car from the ground up. Porsche needs to get over their sour grapes.

Did you read any of this thread at all?

Porsche has, historically, been conservative with their own numbers and does not have a history of pulling publicity stunts like this. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it is highly unlikely that Porsche is being deliberately misleading.

ZV

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: senseamp
GT-R is a superior vehicle, people just need to get over it. Porsche 911 is limited by the fact that it has to be a 911 first. It has to look like a 911 and have engine in the rear like 911. That puts a lot of constraints on the design that Nissan's engineering team doesn't have to deal with. They designed GT-R from ground up exactly how they wanted it, no holds barred, and they took a hell of a long time to sweat every detail and get it just right. Engine in front, transmission in the back, two drive shafts, trick AWD system, the works. Porsche took an AWD 911 and added Turbos and made it lighter. Great. Nissan could have made a Turbo AWD 350Z too, but they took the time and effort to design a super car from the ground up. Porsche needs to get over their sour grapes.

Did you read any of this thread at all?

Porsche has, historically, been conservative with their own numbers and does not have a history of pulling publicity stunts like this. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it is highly unlikely that Porsche is being deliberately misleading.

ZV

I didn't say they are misleading in terms of their experience, but they are throwing serious accusations or at least implications with no proof. Just because their driver could not match Nissan driver's number does not prove that Nissan did not hit that number on production GT-R. Porsche is more than welcome to prove that Nissan cheated, but until they do, it's just a bunch of sour grapes. If Porsche is as conservative as you claim they are with data, maybe they should provide some more convincing data than their one sample GT-R with one sample driver as an example.

 

[theeedude]

As to why Porsche is doing this now, doesn't take an Einstein to figure it out. Sales are down a whopping 45% compared to last year. For Nissan, GT-R is a halo car, they couldn't really care how many they sell, it's immaterial to earnings. It's just E-pen for them. For Porsche, 911 is bread and butter. They have to fight tooth and nail to protect their image of superiority. Especially now when their status conscious customers are getting laid off from bankrupt banks, they need to appeal to the performance fanatics to keep spending the big bucks and keep margins up. Can't have a much cheaper GT-R making your golden goose look like overpriced second place finisher. Porsche cannot make production 911 faster than GT-R, so all they have left to do is whining and PR stunts.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: senseamp
GT-R is a superior vehicle, people just need to get over it. Porsche 911 is limited by the fact that it has to be a 911 first. It has to look like a 911 and have engine in the rear like 911. That puts a lot of constraints on the design that Nissan's engineering team doesn't have to deal with. They designed GT-R from ground up exactly how they wanted it, no holds barred, and they took a hell of a long time to sweat every detail and get it just right. Engine in front, transmission in the back, two drive shafts, trick AWD system, the works. Porsche took an AWD 911 and added Turbos and made it lighter. Great. Nissan could have made a Turbo AWD 350Z too, but they took the time and effort to design a super car from the ground up. Porsche needs to get over their sour grapes.

Did you read any of this thread at all?

Porsche has, historically, been conservative with their own numbers and does not have a history of pulling publicity stunts like this. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it is highly unlikely that Porsche is being deliberately misleading.

ZV

I didn't say they are misleading in terms of their experience, but they are throwing serious accusations or at least implications with no proof. Just because their driver could not match Nissan driver's number does not prove that Nissan did not hit that number on production GT-R. Porsche is more than welcome to prove that Nissan cheated, but until they do, it's just a bunch of sour grapes. If Porsche is as conservative as you claim they are with data, maybe they should provide some more convincing data than their one sample GT-R with one sample driver as an example.

Re-read the actual article. Porsche did not claim that Nissan "cheated". Their development engineer said, "For us, it's not clear how this time is possible. What we can imagine with this Nissan is they used other tyres.". That's all.

They bought a production GT-R and tested it. They released the results of their tests. That is all. Porsche has not set out to "prove" anything, and their only comments have been that, based on the one car they tested it seems to them unlikely that mere production variances could explain the 25 second variance. It's simply pure, cold, Germanic logic.

ZV

 

[theeedude]

No, pure simple Germanic logic would be to conclude that with one GT-R they don't have a large enough statistical sample to draw any statistical conclusions.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nissan fires back : http://www.drive.com.au/Editor...?ArticleID=57410&vf=12

:thumbsup:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: senseamp
No, pure simple Germanic logic would be to conclude that with one GT-R they don't have a large enough statistical sample to draw any statistical conclusions.

They didn't make any bloody "statistical conclusions". Why does everyone insist on claiming things were said that clearly were not?

ZV

 

[overst33r]

In the hands of a Porsche chassis engineer, the GT-R was 20 seconds slower than a 911 GT2 and 16 seconds slower than a Porsche 911 Turbo.

The problem is Porsche isn't sending the same driver that set those times in the 911T and GT2 to drive the GTR around the 'ring.

Or why they didn't have a GT2 and 911 Turbo on hand the SAME day with the SAME driver as when they tested the GTR. I have a feeling that the engineer wouldn't be able to match either of the two times claimed by Porsche for their own cars. Apples and oranges.

If they are as bold to claim the tires weren't the same, at least have a proper comparison.

Either way, this is free publicity for Nissan.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: senseamp
GT-R is a superior vehicle, people just need to get over it. Porsche 911 is limited by the fact that it has to be a 911 first. It has to look like a 911 and have engine in the rear like 911. That puts a lot of constraints on the design that Nissan's engineering team doesn't have to deal with. They designed GT-R from ground up exactly how they wanted it, no holds barred, and they took a hell of a long time to sweat every detail and get it just right. Engine in front, transmission in the back, two drive shafts, trick AWD system, the works. Porsche took an AWD 911 and added Turbos and made it lighter. Great. Nissan could have made a Turbo AWD 350Z too, but they took the time and effort to design a super car from the ground up. Porsche needs to get over their sour grapes.

Did you read any of this thread at all?

Porsche has, historically, been conservative with their own numbers and does not have a history of pulling publicity stunts like this. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but it is highly unlikely that Porsche is being deliberately misleading.

ZV

I didn't say they are misleading in terms of their experience, but they are throwing serious accusations or at least implications with no proof. Just because their driver could not match Nissan driver's number does not prove that Nissan did not hit that number on production GT-R. Porsche is more than welcome to prove that Nissan cheated, but until they do, it's just a bunch of sour grapes. If Porsche is as conservative as you claim they are with data, maybe they should provide some more convincing data than their one sample GT-R with one sample driver as an example.

Re-read the actual article. Porsche did not claim that Nissan "cheated". Their development engineer said, "For us, it's not clear how this time is possible. What we can imagine with this Nissan is they used other tyres.". That's all.

They bought a production GT-R and tested it. They released the results of their tests. That is all. Porsche has not set out to "prove" anything, and their only comments have been that, based on the one car they tested it seems to them unlikely that mere production variances could explain the 25 second variance. It's simply pure, cold, Germanic logic.

ZV

From the article listed in the OP :

http://carsguide.news.com.au/s...eating_at_nurburgring/

"Porsche has accused Nissan of cheating in the GT-R's record bid at the Nurburgring racetrack. "

"For us, it's not clear how this time is possible. What we can imagine with this Nissan is they used other tyres."

He believes the time achieved by Nissan with ex-Formula One driver Toshio Suzuki would only be possible with a semi-slick race-style tyre

"For us it has been clearly the result. This technical puzzle now fits together. With the other numbers we had problems to understand it," he says.

If that's not accusing Nissan of cheating, I don't know what is, or what article and statements you're reading. Look at the thread title, it's perfectly accurate IMHO, as to the content of what they are saying. If Porsche 'believes' that the only way a 7:29 was possible is with a Rcomp racing tire, then they are saying that Nissan did NOT achieve the time with stock tires, ie : CHEATING.

 

[Pariah]

Zenmervolt, don't waste your time. Most of the people trying to defend Nissan in this thread can't even read, so don't bother. Further proof:

Or why they didn't have a GT2 and 911 Turbo on hand the SAME day with the SAME driver as when they tested the GTR. I have a feeling that the engineer wouldn't be able to match either of the two times claimed by Porsche for their own cars.

From the article:

"Achleitner says Porsche took a standard GT-R, running on regular road tyres, and ran it around the Nurburgring within two hours of its own cars, on the same day with exactly the same weather conditions."

The problem is Porsche isn't sending the same driver that set those times in the 911T and GT2 to drive the GTR around the 'ring.

A few paragraphs down from the above quoted:

"But he eventually revealed his team clocked the GT-R at 7 minutes 54 seconds, with the 911 Turbo managing 7:38 and the GT2 getting down to 7:34.

The laps were not run by Porsche's usual hot-lap specialist, former world rally champion and race winner Walter Rohrl, but one of the company's chassis development engineers who is an expert on the Nurburgring."


Note the plural version of lap indicating the same guy did all the laps.

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Zenmervolt, don't waste your time. Most of the people trying to defend Nissan in this thread can't even read, so don't bother. Further proof:

Or why they didn't have a GT2 and 911 Turbo on hand the SAME day with the SAME driver as when they tested the GTR. I have a feeling that the engineer wouldn't be able to match either of the two times claimed by Porsche for their own cars.

From the article:

"Achleitner says Porsche took a standard GT-R, running on regular road tyres, and ran it around the Nurburgring within two hours of its own cars, on the same day with exactly the same weather conditions."

The problem is Porsche isn't sending the same driver that set those times in the 911T and GT2 to drive the GTR around the 'ring.

A few paragraphs down from the above quoted:

"But he eventually revealed his team clocked the GT-R at 7 minutes 54 seconds, with the 911 Turbo managing 7:38 and the GT2 getting down to 7:34.

The laps were not run by Porsche's usual hot-lap specialist, former world rally champion and race winner Walter Rohrl, but one of the company's chassis development engineers who is an expert on the Nurburgring."


Note the plural version of lap indicating the same guy did all the laps.

My mistake, I didn't read the article in the OP. I read an abridged version of it somewhere else

 

[Lonyo]

Simple solution.
Get a GT-R and a 911.
Get The Stig and that German woman to drive each one round the track.
See what happens time-wise.