Nissan GTR SpecV

[jjmd3_787]

VR38DETT v6 engine . . . 0-60 mph in 3.2 sec , 0-100 mph in 7.3 sec , 1/4-mile,sec is 11.3 * 124.8 mph (according to Road&Track Magazine review)

It comes with a hefty price of $160,000, twice that of the 2010 GTR.

It smoked the Porsche 911 Turbo and Chevrolet Corvette around the racetrack and devoured the Nurburgring's famed Nordschleife in a controversial 7 minutes 9 seconds (Porsche questioned its validity).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wL_KxV6q2c"]YouTube - Nissan GT-R SpecV Exclusive[/ame]

[niky]

I'll question the validity of that laptime, too... since you're the only person on the internet who actually claims it.

The last official time released by Nissan is 7:26.7. The Spec V has better brakes and a firmer suspension than the standard model that set the time, so it might get close to 7:20, but 7:09 would require some 700 horsepower and/or slicks.

[ghosthunter]

The last official time released by Nissan is 7:26.7. The Spec V has better brakes and a firmer suspension than the standard model that set the time, so it might get close to 7:20, but 7:09 would require some 700 horsepower and/or slicks.

Maybe they borrowed the STIG's German cousin? :drive1: Sabrine Schmitz?

[benchph1]

That specV must be like the GT3 and Z06. which are "track only" version of the road - going sports cars.

Fun to drive on the track, but bone jarringly hard to drive on the road.

[jjmd3_787]

I'll question the validity of that laptime, too... since you're the only person on the internet who actually claims it.

He he he. I just blogged what I read in the Road & Track Magazine issue of June 2009. I'm not trying to claim or validate anything. But I'm guilty . . . of being the biggest fan of the Nissan GTR.

[niky]

It would help if you provided scans... 7:24-25 was the last unofficial time (hand-timed by observers) attributed to the V-Spec.

The difficulty with coming close to the sub-7:30 times of the Nissan test is that you can't really compare two different drivers and two differen track sessions.

Of the full laps done with the GT-R, only two were done in optimum conditions. Porsche's claimed 7:52 time is ridiculous, considering Drivers Republic writer Chris Harris (formerly of AutoCar) got nearly the exact same time (less than two seconds slower)... on a wet track. Which makes Porsche's time more than a little weird... unless they were driving on completely grained tires.

The closest to an optimal test printed by an independent authority is the 7:38 by Horst von Saurma for Sport Auto. It's a big difference to the 7:29 (9 seconds) recorded by Nissan with the same spec of car... BUT...

Nissan's own test-driver, Toshio Suzuki... has countless thousands of kilometers under his belt on the GT-R on the race track... Horst only had one day to do his laptime...

Add to that, the fact that Nissan has a complete crew with it... with lots of extra tires on hand to do the lap. According to many owners and various test drivers, the "fast" tires on the GT-R, the Dunlops, give their best in the first few laps... afterwards, they lose grip and introduce more understeer. When you're driving a press hack, you can't always be sure that the car has tires in perfect condition... If you're Nissan or Porsche, you can equip the car with fresh tires for every lap record attempt.

As further illustration... Horst's test of the Porsche 911 Turbo got him a laptime of 7:54. Porsche's test got 7:38. A difference of 16 seconds...

This is the problem with bench-racing laptimes. To say a laptime is impossible because you can't duplicate months worth of testing and honing techniques in a single day's driving is jumping to hasty conclusions... like saying Kimi Raikkonen's lap record at Monaco is impossible just because, say, Tiff Needell or Jason Plato can't do the same given one day with Kimi's Ferrari, even though they're racing drivers...

Now as to why Porsche's test drivers got beaten by Chris Harris at the ring, considering Harris actually had a privately owned GT-R versus Porsche's showroom models, was driving in wet weather and only had two days to test versus the weeks Porsche spent tearing their hair out... all I can say is... I bet somebody in their testing department lost his job over this one...

[niky]

It would help if you provided scans... 7:24-25 was the last unofficial time (hand-timed by observers) attributed to the V-Spec.

The difficulty with coming close to the sub-7:30 times of the Nissan test is that you can't really compare two different drivers and two differen track sessions.

Of the full laps done with the GT-R, only two were done in optimum conditions. Porsche's claimed 7:52 time is ridiculous, considering Drivers Republic writer Chris Harris (formerly of AutoCar) got nearly the exact same time (less than two seconds slower)... on a wet track. Which makes Porsche's time more than a little weird... unless they were driving on completely grained tires.

The closest to an optimal test printed by an independent authority is the 7:38 by Horst von Saurma for Sport Auto. It's a big difference to the 7:29 (9 seconds) recorded by Nissan with the same spec of car... BUT...

Nissan's own test-driver, Toshio Suzuki... has countless thousands of kilometers under his belt on the GT-R on the race track... Horst only had one day to do his laptime...

Add to that, the fact that Nissan has a complete crew with it... with lots of extra tires on hand to do the lap. According to many owners and various test drivers, the "fast" tires on the GT-R, the Dunlops, give their best in the first few laps... afterwards, they lose grip and introduce more understeer. When you're driving a press hack, you can't always be sure that the car has tires in perfect condition... If you're Nissan or Porsche, you can equip the car with fresh tires for every lap record attempt.

As further illustration... Horst's test of the Porsche 911 Turbo got him a laptime of 7:54. Porsche's test got 7:38. A difference of 16 seconds...

This is the problem with bench-racing laptimes. To say a laptime is impossible because you can't duplicate months worth of testing and honing techniques in a single day's driving is jumping to hasty conclusions... like saying Kimi Raikkonen's lap record at Monaco is impossible just because, say, Tiff Needell or Jason Plato can't do the same given one day with Kimi's Ferrari, even though they're racing drivers...

Now as to why Porsche's test drivers got beaten by Chris Harris at the ring, considering Harris actually had a privately owned GT-R versus Porsche's showroom models, was driving in wet weather and only had two days to test versus the weeks Porsche spent tearing their hair out... all I can say is... I bet somebody in their testing department lost his job over this one...

[AG4]

The standard GTR is a great car for its price, but this one is a different story.
Small improvement in performance over the standard GTR, but double the price? Not worth it, not unless you are a car collector or a hardcore GTR fan.

It smoked the Porsche 911 Turbo and Chevrolet Corvette around the racetrack and devoured the Nurburgring's famed Nordschleife in a controversial 7 minutes 9 seconds (Porsche questioned its validity).

7 minutes 9 seconds? No such record.

I also question the validity of Nissan's "official" Nordschleife lap time record for the simple fact that no other test driver or race car driver outside Nissan can get anywhere near Nissan's claimed GTR 'Ring lap time when using a stock GTR.

By the way, we already have an exisitng GTR SpecV thread: http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56092