The Truth - Nissan GT-R vs 997 GT2 on the Nurburgring by DR

[79TA]

Originally Posted by Woohoo So the standard GT-R is only 7 seconds slower than the fastest and most expensive Porsche currently available? The GT-R which is owned by some British dude is only 7 seconds slower than the GT2 which is a press car owned by Porsche? The car with the heated seats and sat nav is 7 seconds slower than one of the fastest road cars Porsche has ever build? Yeah, the GT-R is a total failure.

Exactly, that should be braggable in itself yet Nissan is bent on even more aggressive claims. Oh well, so it goes. Now it's time for them to put up some numbers for the very promising 370.

[SHIZL]

Originally Posted by Woohoo No, AWD is not faster than RWD on slippery conditions. No, normal tires aren't faster than semi slicks in the wet. If you want proof, just look at the wet handling tests done by Sport Auto. (yeah, the fastest car was a RWD with semi slicks) But I know that you still won't believe me. So believe what you want. I really don't care.

i always thought awd had better traction than fwd or rwd. i always thought that was the big attraction to awd vehicles was the traction that could be achieved in bad conditions. it sounds like u have done your research on the subject and every mechanical engineer that has worked on awd is wrong.

[79TA]

^ the key there is traction in poor conditions. Rwd is king in dry prepared circuit racing. Where awd becomes advantageous over rwd is a result of all sorts of specific factors. Preference is then a matter of taste, driving style, and one's surroundings.

[gobs3z]

Originally Posted by Woohoo No, AWD is not faster than RWD on slippery conditions. No, normal tires aren't faster than semi slicks in the wet. If you want proof, just look at the wet handling tests done by Sport Auto. (yeah, the fastest car was a RWD with semi slicks)

You're making a really ignorant statement. It seems as though you have no idea how many different types of AWD exist, and the fact that weight bias has more to do with handling characteristics than where the power is being put. If you put an Audi (nice an heavy up front) against a more well balanced BMW than of course in all conditions with the same tires the BMW is going to more controllable.

If you recall Clarkson test the Prodrive P2 which could send all the power to any of the wheels to keep it which could make it act as a RWD, AWD, or FWD to make amazing handling an any condition. Basically the ultimate car in torque vectoring.

People assume AWD means the noise heavy cars that basically act as FWD, which is mostly true but if you notice the GT-R has two drive shafts and that's to give it the ability to move the engine behind the front wheels so it doesn't have the Audi characteristics we all know. The GT-R's downside is not AWD, that's actually an amazing peice of engineering, but it's the obvious weight that it has to carry.

Overall wieght, and the distribution of weight are what matters more than anything else and that has been the problem with AWD cars up until recently, and a statement that RWD cars handle better than AWD is not correct whatsoever and ignores too many factors.

[graywolf624]

The GT-R's downside is not AWD, that's actually an amazing peice of engineering, but it's the obvious weight that it has to carry.

What your missing sir, is that the weight is a direct result of the car being AWD. The two go hand and hand, and yes duh thats why the rwd is superior all else equal on a dry track surface. If you could somehow make a awd = the weight of its rwd equivellent (with the torque splitting stuff) it would be superior. The problem is.. Theres no way to do that in the real world.

[philip]

The latest Car magazine tests 29 top cars including the GT-R and the GT2. The GT-R beats the GT2 by at least a second. It is only 2nd by a mear 1/10 of a second to a Lambo which costs three times as much.

They said it was easy to drive fast and much more comfortable to drive than the Lambo.

Seemed pretty clear it is quite a car.

But I still have not seen one on the street. And no one has tested it against the ZR1, yet assuming they will be made any more after GM goes down the last time.

[gobs3z]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 What your missing sir, is that the weight is a direct result of the car being AWD. The two go hand and hand, and yes duh thats why the rwd is superior all else equal on a dry track surface. If you could somehow make a awd = the weight of its rwd equivellent (with the torque splitting stuff) it would be superior. The problem is.. Theres no way to do that in the real world.

Wait...so you're going to blame an obese weight of 3782 lbs. on AWD? Not that it has 20in. wheels? Massive breaks? An overdone interior with electric seats? No use of carbon fiber or fiberglass body panels? A turbo motor with with the weight of extra piping and intercoolers (despite an aluminum block)? A double clutch gear box? And the fact that it's just a big car? Compared to lets say...a Z06's 3200+-lbs. you can honestly say that you think the AWD on a GT-R weighs 600 lbs. with carbon fiber driver-shafts?

The Gallardo's AWD system weighs 110lbs, and somehow the GT-R's weighs 6 times that? Overall the Gallardo weighs 200 lbs. more than a Z06. A Porche Carrera vs. a Carrera 4 is only a 66 lbs. difference. Point is the GT-R is a fat car despite AWD. I can't see the AWD weighing much further north of 200 lbs.

[Alelanza]

Originally Posted by gobs3z if you notice the GT-R has two drive shafts and that's to give it the ability to move the engine behind the front wheels so it doesn't have the Audi characteristics we all know.

You lost me here, it's got two as a result of the gearbox being in the back, which then allows the engine to be placed further back as well. I don't see why two driveshafts would allow better engine placement....

Originally Posted by gobs3z carbon fiber driver-shafts?

AFAIK only one of them is CF, the one going to FW needs to be stronger in order to cope with the multiplied torque.

[gobs3z]

Originally Posted by Alelanza You lost me here, it's got two as a result of the gearbox being in the back, which then allows the engine to be placed further back as well. I don't see why two driveshafts would allow better engine placement.... AFAIK only one of them is CF, the one going to FW needs to be stronger in order to cope with the multiplied torque.

The reason that such AWD cars like Audi or Suburu have the engine sitting over the front wheels is because they're essentially set up as FWD cars (i'm not talking torque split). It means the engine placement can only go so far back because the front wheels drive axles have to be connected to the gear box, whereas the GT-R has all the power sent to the rear wheels first through one drive shaft and then onto the gear box (essentially a RWD setup), and then sends power when it is needed to the front wheels via another drive shaft. This means the engine can be placed in a front/mid-engine configuration (like a Corvette) since the engine/gearbox doesn't have to connect directly to the front wheels like Audi's or Suburu's that have the gear box up front. Explaining this is a bitch haha, but it does make sense.

The second drive-shaft that goes to the front wheels goes beyond the length of the first drive-shaft and the engine, and then to the wheels that can now be put in front of the engine isntead of next to it.

[Alelanza]

Yeah i know, i guess my point is, the driveshafts are a result of the layout, rather than being what allows a different engine placement

[gobs3z]

You're completely correct, I have just been trying to make the point that no one should assume RWD is automatically the better platform when AWD has advanced far beyond the Audi Quattro of the 80s. But good chat nonetheless

[Alelanza]

Agreed mate