Nice!
17 September 2010, 12:19 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT2 RS in action!!
I went around there (Porsche Driving Experience centre in Silverstone) last year for my 30th in the standard GT2 and GT3, so that must have felt like a caged animal.
Still have very fond memories!
20 November 2010, 04:07 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the first GT2 RSs was delivered yesterday.
And when the customer went to collect the car, Chris '911' Harris appeared to hand over the keys!
His advice to the customer, 'This car is dental records!'.
And when the customer went to collect the car, Chris '911' Harris appeared to hand over the keys!
His advice to the customer, 'This car is dental records!'.
Trending Topics
21 November 2010, 12:15 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nice video, but it costs an extra £15000 per second saved around a Nurburgring lap compared to a standard 2011 GTR, has a slower 0-60 and has a similar quarter mile time, only 2 seats, no proper boot, and you have to change gear yourself 
Surely as a track car it is a bit expensive for most? As a road car I'd love to see it in the rain. Destined to stay under a cover somewhere?
Surely as a track car it is a bit expensive for most? As a road car I'd love to see it in the rain. Destined to stay under a cover somewhere?
21 November 2010, 08:16 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right John.
You can look at it two ways. You can see it as £100 per second and £14,900 as the badge premium.
Or, £15,000 per second and £15,000 Datsun subsidy
You can look at it two ways. You can see it as £100 per second and £14,900 as the badge premium.
Or, £15,000 per second and £15,000 Datsun subsidy
21 November 2010, 10:28 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder how it would be as a road car in the UK on anything but a smooth, warm, dry surface? 600 BHP even with 4wd has you at part throttle at road legal speeds outwith these conditions and given it's power to weight advantage over a GTR but not as fast on track as that would suggest, I bet it will be terrible for traction in the real world? It should be good on autobahns and smooth tracks in summer. But for UK roads it will be frustrating I bet.
21 November 2010, 05:23 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allowing for the capital outlay the depreciation will be negative for a long time.
The owner has already been offered £200k for his £165k car
Can't see that happening with a GTR
As for your comments John - the answer is let's wait and see. Every expectation that the considerably less powerful GT3 RS would be awful on the road and yet experience has confounded that by saying that the RS is better on the road than the vanilla GT3. The GT3 RS and GT2 RS share similar suspension set up.
When Harris reviewed the GT2 RS his feedback was that he was stunned by the grip car had, particularly at the front, and 911s have legendary traction at the rear.
The owner has already been offered £200k for his £165k car
Can't see that happening with a GTR
As for your comments John - the answer is let's wait and see. Every expectation that the considerably less powerful GT3 RS would be awful on the road and yet experience has confounded that by saying that the RS is better on the road than the vanilla GT3. The GT3 RS and GT2 RS share similar suspension set up.
When Harris reviewed the GT2 RS his feedback was that he was stunned by the grip car had, particularly at the front, and 911s have legendary traction at the rear.
21 November 2010, 05:38 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Another 100 grand , you do have to be joking
you could have a classic porsche with the spare change !
you could have a classic porsche with the spare change !
Last edited by dpb; 21 November 2010 at 06:57 PM.
21 November 2010, 06:04 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you go - I have been in one of these...
Datsun 120Y
Last edited by Trout; 21 November 2010 at 06:11 PM.
21 November 2010, 06:23 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What about the chassis/drivetrain? It has 50% higher power to weight ratio than the GTR but saves only 0.8 seconds per minute on track. If this was any other car pair you'd say that one of the cars had something wrong with its drivetrain, chassis, brakes wouldn't you? A 50% increase in power to weight ratio should lead to obliteration of the competing car. Unimpressed, would rather keep the £90k in my pocket and risk the depreciation thanks. Emperor's new clothes?
Last edited by john banks; 21 November 2010 at 06:24 PM.
21 November 2010, 06:32 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the chassis/drivetrain? It has 50% higher power to weight ratio than the GTR but saves only 0.8 seconds per minute on track. If this was any other car pair you'd say that one of the cars had something wrong with its drivetrain, chassis, brakes wouldn't you? A 50% increase in power to weight ratio should lead to obliteration of the competing car. Unimpressed, would rather keep the £90k in my pocket and risk the depreciation thanks. Emperor's new clothes?
I think I'll drop a note to Porsche to say there must be something wrong with it.
21 November 2010, 08:20 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the chassis/drivetrain? It has 50% higher power to weight ratio than the GTR but saves only 0.8 seconds per minute on track. If this was any other car pair you'd say that one of the cars had something wrong with its drivetrain, chassis, brakes wouldn't you? A 50% increase in power to weight ratio should lead to obliteration of the competing car. Unimpressed, would rather keep the £90k in my pocket and risk the depreciation thanks. Emperor's new clothes?
Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, and Zonda are to cease trading.
Reports that are coming out of Reuters, is that a Porsche Director was messing around on his PC at home and happened to hit a link for a Subaru Forum. Reports suggest that Forum was called Scoobynet. Although this is yet to be confirmed.
The report continues. The Porsche Director is reported to have read a thread on the mentioned Forum, that as a Nissan GTR can lap the `Ring` as fast as, or faster than Porsche's own cars, and that people would be mad to pay twice the price or more, for a Porsche when the GTR is only £70k.
The Porsche director is reported to be so shocked at learning this news, that he immediately sent the link to Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, and Zonda.
A conference call was held between the companies CEO's, and after a much heated debate, all CEO's have agreed to cease production, stating that as the GTR is only £70k, they see no business case is continuing production, as Millionaires around the world wouldn't buy their products as the GTR is just as fast.
An industry insider is reported to have said the Bugatti Director will be meeting the the VW/Audi board on Monday to discuss whether or not to cease production too.
Last edited by stilover; 21 November 2010 at 08:22 PM.
Would be in my ultimate 5 car garage
21 November 2010, 10:38 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilover - you missed Dumphart and Radical as well. Other cars that are clearly wasting their power to weight ratios and must have something wrong with them too.
In fact the GT2 RS got lucky - for it's 'Ring time is proportionally better than the median for required power to weight ratio. Phew! It's not all bad after all!
With regards to the 'Ring, I think it was Harris who suggested a new way of recording lap times. He reckons it would be far more realistic to average times on four continuous laps as a number of high performing 'Ring cars might find it difficult to repeat their one off efforts as their brakes melt, they suffer increasing heat soak and their tyres go off.
In fact the GT2 RS got lucky - for it's 'Ring time is proportionally better than the median for required power to weight ratio. Phew! It's not all bad after all!
With regards to the 'Ring, I think it was Harris who suggested a new way of recording lap times. He reckons it would be far more realistic to average times on four continuous laps as a number of high performing 'Ring cars might find it difficult to repeat their one off efforts as their brakes melt, they suffer increasing heat soak and their tyres go off.
Last edited by Trout; 21 November 2010 at 10:40 PM.
21 November 2010, 10:57 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That would put a different light on it indeed, in the Porsche's favour. I'm not saying these other cars are pointless, there is something that allows astute companies like Porsche to be able to make huge profits out of their highest performance models. Image/Emperor clothing or heritage/delicacy/handling/feel/character bordering on supernatural spirituality perhaps depending on your point of view.
The journalist or individual that criticises a Porsche (and it seems a BMW these days) calls into question his own judgement more than that of the car he questions.
Japanese performance cars have often made Germans look a bit silly in performance vs cost as well as reliability.
It is a performance car though. With most people not being made of money, they will question what performance they get for their hard earned. So that is what I'm questioning, why does a 50% greater power to weight ratio only save 0.8 seconds per minute on the benchmark race track which is used to sell all these cars? Could it be by any chance that because of marketing reasons that the engine is still in the wrong place, no matter how much engineering goes on to try to fix it? It can't be that the brakes and lateral grip are lacking. Could it be traction, front end grip, turn in, lossy drivetrain?
Just being better than the median on efficient use of power to weight ratio, is that enough for its price? There is a clear deficit here compared to an effective but still relatively numerous and affordable mainstream alternative. I'd like to know why that is. I'm not saying everyone should go and buy a GTR, far from it, the car has significant flaws. Is it unreasonable to ask then? From the reaction it seems to be considered rude to ask. Why is that? Have I insulted something holy?
When I used to subscribe to Evo I was interested to look at the traces and note the cars with high peak speeds on the straights and also high overall lap times. It tends to suggest cars that have a lot of power but don't make good use of it for some reason. It is like cars high quarter mile terminals and also high elapsed times. Both suggest to me that those cars are not efficient users of their power to weight ratio, or have a cornering or traction problem.
The journalist or individual that criticises a Porsche (and it seems a BMW these days) calls into question his own judgement more than that of the car he questions.
Japanese performance cars have often made Germans look a bit silly in performance vs cost as well as reliability.
It is a performance car though. With most people not being made of money, they will question what performance they get for their hard earned. So that is what I'm questioning, why does a 50% greater power to weight ratio only save 0.8 seconds per minute on the benchmark race track which is used to sell all these cars? Could it be by any chance that because of marketing reasons that the engine is still in the wrong place, no matter how much engineering goes on to try to fix it? It can't be that the brakes and lateral grip are lacking. Could it be traction, front end grip, turn in, lossy drivetrain?
Just being better than the median on efficient use of power to weight ratio, is that enough for its price? There is a clear deficit here compared to an effective but still relatively numerous and affordable mainstream alternative. I'd like to know why that is. I'm not saying everyone should go and buy a GTR, far from it, the car has significant flaws. Is it unreasonable to ask then? From the reaction it seems to be considered rude to ask. Why is that? Have I insulted something holy?
When I used to subscribe to Evo I was interested to look at the traces and note the cars with high peak speeds on the straights and also high overall lap times. It tends to suggest cars that have a lot of power but don't make good use of it for some reason. It is like cars high quarter mile terminals and also high elapsed times. Both suggest to me that those cars are not efficient users of their power to weight ratio, or have a cornering or traction problem.
Last edited by john banks; 21 November 2010 at 11:01 PM.
21 November 2010, 11:33 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand John the same is true of the journalist that questions some aspects of the GTR. Question a GTR then your head is in the sand or the pocket of the Germans.
As you raise 'Ring times as the benchmark then an analysis of that places a much bigger question mark over cars away from the GT2 RS. From your perspective if you factor in £s to the power to weight ratio question then cars such as the Carrera GT, various Zondas and other hypercar machinery come off very much worse.
Or perhaps THE question of 'Ring times over the last couple of years is that one car is an extreme outlier the original and the new GTR. The GTR manages 'Ring times with at least 100bhp and up to 280bhp per tonne less than it's nearest rivals - which is an astonishing feat. And Nissan also achieves 'Ring times that other drivers find hard to match, certainly harder than with rival cars.
It is fantastic that the GTR can achieve such things, although it does seem less dominant elsewhere. On short tracks there are a number of example times where it is slower than the considerably less potent GT3 RS*. And for just about every other supercar or hypercar, they all need up to double the power to weight ratio of the GTR to achieve one result. But do not seem to suffer elsewhere where the GTR is still fast but less of an outlier.
As to other dimensions of physics. The GT2 will almost certainly match if not beat the lateral force it can generate, has supposedly phenomenal turn in, great brakes and similar if not even quicker 0-100 times as a GTR - so yes it is remarkable that the GTR does so well. I won't say the Porsche does so badly as you imply, as the GT2 RS punches well above it's power to weight compared to it's nearest 'Ring rivals.
I do like the suggestion above - as the 'Ring has become such a benchmark then it can be made a more realistic test by running four continuous laps. Of course that suits me as a Porsche fan as I am very confident it would do little to dent Porsche times. As I have joked elsewhere - would a production line GTR be competitive in the N24 - it might be but those buggers at Stuggart have stolen a march there with a production line (+ FIA safety requirements) 911
As for Jap v. German I think I have paid my dues there. It was possible to build a bonkersly powerful Jap car but it was literally too high maintenance. I am sure that on any circuit that I was totally new to I would be quicker out of the box in my Spec C (lack of talent/confidence). But I also know that the 911 brings a different quality to the driving experience and on circuits/sprints that I have learned it punches above it's weight even with me driving.
Anyway - I am just rambling now - but I not sure it is as simple as 'Ring times it is about subjective experience which comes in many forms. Just like then Emporer's new clothes then
*Maybe for shorter circuits the GTRs engine is in the wrong place
As you raise 'Ring times as the benchmark then an analysis of that places a much bigger question mark over cars away from the GT2 RS. From your perspective if you factor in £s to the power to weight ratio question then cars such as the Carrera GT, various Zondas and other hypercar machinery come off very much worse.
Or perhaps THE question of 'Ring times over the last couple of years is that one car is an extreme outlier the original and the new GTR. The GTR manages 'Ring times with at least 100bhp and up to 280bhp per tonne less than it's nearest rivals - which is an astonishing feat. And Nissan also achieves 'Ring times that other drivers find hard to match, certainly harder than with rival cars.
It is fantastic that the GTR can achieve such things, although it does seem less dominant elsewhere. On short tracks there are a number of example times where it is slower than the considerably less potent GT3 RS*. And for just about every other supercar or hypercar, they all need up to double the power to weight ratio of the GTR to achieve one result. But do not seem to suffer elsewhere where the GTR is still fast but less of an outlier.
As to other dimensions of physics. The GT2 will almost certainly match if not beat the lateral force it can generate, has supposedly phenomenal turn in, great brakes and similar if not even quicker 0-100 times as a GTR - so yes it is remarkable that the GTR does so well. I won't say the Porsche does so badly as you imply, as the GT2 RS punches well above it's power to weight compared to it's nearest 'Ring rivals.
I do like the suggestion above - as the 'Ring has become such a benchmark then it can be made a more realistic test by running four continuous laps. Of course that suits me as a Porsche fan as I am very confident it would do little to dent Porsche times. As I have joked elsewhere - would a production line GTR be competitive in the N24 - it might be but those buggers at Stuggart have stolen a march there with a production line (+ FIA safety requirements) 911
As for Jap v. German I think I have paid my dues there. It was possible to build a bonkersly powerful Jap car but it was literally too high maintenance. I am sure that on any circuit that I was totally new to I would be quicker out of the box in my Spec C (lack of talent/confidence). But I also know that the 911 brings a different quality to the driving experience and on circuits/sprints that I have learned it punches above it's weight even with me driving.
Anyway - I am just rambling now - but I not sure it is as simple as 'Ring times it is about subjective experience which comes in many forms. Just like then Emporer's new clothes then
*Maybe for shorter circuits the GTRs engine is in the wrong place
Last edited by Trout; 21 November 2010 at 11:59 PM.
21 November 2010, 11:53 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a performance car though. With most people not being made of money, they will question what performance they get for their hard earned. So that is what I'm questioning, why does a 50% greater power to weight ratio only save 0.8 seconds per minute on the benchmark race track which is used to sell all these cars? Could it be by any chance that because of marketing reasons that the engine is still in the wrong place, no matter how much engineering goes on to try to fix it? It can't be that the brakes and lateral grip are lacking. Could it be traction, front end grip, turn in, lossy drivetrain?
.
.
Once you get to a certain level of speed, the only way to go way faster is to either go silly power, or ultra light.
A ferrari 599 GTO is twice the price of a GT2 RS, yet will probably struggle to beat the GT2's time. Should no one buy the Ferrari? You could have 2 GT2 RS's for it's purchase price.
22 November 2010, 12:27 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers can always be a fascinating thing.
According to the Sport Auto Wet Handling test the **** engined cars do extremely well with a 911 heading the list.
The GTR a lowly 29/68, but the real star of the list is the GT2 RS which places 64/68!!!
Now there is an outlier!! Maybe you are right John, they will only come out on dry days!
Wet Handling
According to the Sport Auto Wet Handling test the **** engined cars do extremely well with a 911 heading the list.
The GTR a lowly 29/68, but the real star of the list is the GT2 RS which places 64/68!!!
Now there is an outlier!! Maybe you are right John, they will only come out on dry days!
Wet Handling
22 November 2010, 07:58 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason why the GT-R is so damn fast round the `Ring` is that it is a technical Tour-de-force. While the GT2-RS isn't.
Get it slightly wrong in the GT-R, and`it` will sort it out for you. Get it slightly wrong in the GT2, and `you` have to sort it or have a crash.
Most people on this Forum could step into a GT-R and set a reasonable lap time. Few could get near it in a GT2 RS. To get the best out of a GT2 RS, the driver has to have enormous skill, and be fully concentrating.
The Porsches engine is in the wrong place, but Porsche should be applauded for the engineering that has gone into the 911, to get around this problem.
Go back to Clarksons video years ago, to find the best handling car. The Skyline R33 set the fastest lap time, and was up against a 911, 550 Maranello, F355. Yet both the racing drivers, Richard Burns and Tim Harvey disliked it, as it didn't do what they wanted it to do. It did it for them.
The GT-R has to be the best value for money sports car on the planet for what it can do.
The GT-R makes an average driver look good. A GT2 RS requires it's driver to have skill. To get the best out of the GT2 RS would be far more rewarding than the GT-R, as you know you've done it and not the electronics.
Which is best? They both are. They just have different solutions to the same problem. Getting from A-B as quickly as possible.
Get it slightly wrong in the GT-R, and`it` will sort it out for you. Get it slightly wrong in the GT2, and `you` have to sort it or have a crash.
Most people on this Forum could step into a GT-R and set a reasonable lap time. Few could get near it in a GT2 RS. To get the best out of a GT2 RS, the driver has to have enormous skill, and be fully concentrating.
The Porsches engine is in the wrong place, but Porsche should be applauded for the engineering that has gone into the 911, to get around this problem.
Go back to Clarksons video years ago, to find the best handling car. The Skyline R33 set the fastest lap time, and was up against a 911, 550 Maranello, F355. Yet both the racing drivers, Richard Burns and Tim Harvey disliked it, as it didn't do what they wanted it to do. It did it for them.
The GT-R has to be the best value for money sports car on the planet for what it can do.
The GT-R makes an average driver look good. A GT2 RS requires it's driver to have skill. To get the best out of the GT2 RS would be far more rewarding than the GT-R, as you know you've done it and not the electronics.
Which is best? They both are. They just have different solutions to the same problem. Getting from A-B as quickly as possible.
22 November 2010, 09:20 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
All good points gents, but working on the electronics of the GTR daily I don't see the car the journalists and you guys describe here. It has one electronically controlled differential and the rest is routine ESP stuff as found on shopping cars. Turn the ESP off and you have only the electronically controlled centre diff, much like Subaru DCCD. There is actually very little that is technical about it, far less so than torque vectoring Porsche and Audi stuff, Evos and similar to BMW M diffs just in a different place. The engine is a port injection V6 with a couple of conventional turbos. The dual clutch gearbox is capable of course.
Not the best car in the world, but let's get rid of the journalist myths here about the computers.
Not the best car in the world, but let's get rid of the journalist myths here about the computers.
22 November 2010, 09:27 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 9,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on now John, have you not already said you'd rather have had the RS6 than the GTR?
It's definately not all about figures. When it comes to cars like these, i doubt any of us wouldn't be extremely happy to own any of them, but i it reminds me of the two videos of the GTR and Corvette Ring lap times. The GTR looked easy and the Vette, scary as hell. I know i'd rather choose the the GTR out the two, but i'm not the greatest driver in the world and need the aid's to help get out of the problems i'd give myself.
Outright pace won't always win me over...i need scared and my breath taken away by a car, when spending that sort of money.
Even the lowly MK1 Focus RS was NOT a fast car, but it made you WORK for the enjoyment...the way a car should.
It's definately not all about figures. When it comes to cars like these, i doubt any of us wouldn't be extremely happy to own any of them, but i it reminds me of the two videos of the GTR and Corvette Ring lap times. The GTR looked easy and the Vette, scary as hell. I know i'd rather choose the the GTR out the two, but i'm not the greatest driver in the world and need the aid's to help get out of the problems i'd give myself.
Outright pace won't always win me over...i need scared and my breath taken away by a car, when spending that sort of money.
Even the lowly MK1 Focus RS was NOT a fast car, but it made you WORK for the enjoyment...the way a car should.
Last edited by drb5; 22 November 2010 at 09:43 AM.