Bad press for Toyota and Lexus........something different

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Have Top gear got the GTR and NSX on their times board, i wonder how the Stig would go driving them ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/powerlaps.shtml

They have the NSX Type-R. Which did 1:31.6 on their board.

1.2 seconds slower then a Volkswagen Golf R32.

Porsche 911 Carrera S in a Very Wet according to them lap did 1:28.9.

The Monaro VXR (aka HSV GTO) did 1:30.1.

NSX didn't do too well.

And no, there's no Skyline.

[Falcon Coupe]

Thanks Steffo, i knew i could rely on the FF statistician .

[killer_taxi]

Originally Posted by Steffo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/powerlaps.shtml

They have the NSX Type-R. Which did 1:31.6 on their board.

1.2 seconds slower then a Volkswagen Golf R32.

Porsche 911 Carrera S in a Very Wet according to them lap did 1:28.9.

The Monaro VXR (aka HSV GTO) did 1:30.1.

NSX didn't do too well.

And no, there's no Skyline.

The NSX-R was driven by old Stig (who appears to be slower then new Stig), and it was pouring rain.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Thanks Steffo, i knew i could rely on the FF statistician .

Any time.

Originally Posted by killer_taxi

The NSX-R was driven by old Stig (who appears to be slower then new Stig), and it was pouring rain.

Alot of them are done in the rain, and lots of varying weather conditions. That's why I say TG Powerlaps aren't the most accurate source of information. However, I do find it ammusing that the NSX-R got embarassed even on their list too. Beaten by a small-medium hatchback with a V6 engine in it, that makes less power too.

[killer_taxi]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Alot of them are done in the rain, and lots of varying weather conditions. That's why I say TG Powerlaps aren't the most accurate source of information. However, I do find it ammusing that the NSX-R got embarassed even on their list too. Beaten by a small-medium hatchback with a V6 engine in it, that makes less power too.

I think your talking about the latest R32. The first R32 did a 1:33.2 in the dry, more importantly, with old Stig behind the wheel. You should also note that the NSX matched the time of Noble M12 and was quicker then a Ferrari 575 and Aston Martin Vanquish, all of which were driven in the wet and driven by old Stig. The track times between the old and the new Stig are significant.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by killer_taxi

I think your talking about the latest R32. The first R32 did a 1:33.0 in the dry, more importantly, with old Stig behind the wheel. You should also note that the NSX matched the time of Noble M12 and was quicker then a Ferrari 575 and Aston Martin Vanquish, all of which were driven in the wet and driven by old Stig. The track times between the old and the new Stig are significant.

Which shows just how bad Top Gear times are. There's no way that the Noble M12, Ferrari F575M or Aston Martin Vanquish are going to be beaten head to head on any track by a 184kW Golf or a 300kW Monaro. Yet on TG's Powerlaps they were. Hmm.

[killer_taxi]

: Why did you use Top Gear lap times to support your argument then?
Your comments:
"NSX didn't do too well."
"However, I do find it ammusing that the NSX-R got embarassed even on their list too. Beaten by a small-medium hatchback with a V6 engine in it, that makes less power too."

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by killer_taxi

: Why did you use Top Gear lap times to support your argument then?
Your comments:
"NSX didn't do too well."
"However, I do find it ammusing that the NSX-R got embarassed even on their list too. Beaten by a small-medium hatchback with a V6 engine in it, that makes less power too."

I've said in several posts in this thread that I think TG Powerlaps are inaccurate. All I was saying was that I found it funny that even in that measure, inaccurate as it may be, the NSX loses to such cars.

Nurburgring times, while inaccurate, can never be as bad as those. A Golf R32 will always be slower then something like an NSX, they highlight superior performing cars rather well. And even there the NSX lost to some embarassing stuff, like a 2.2 tonne luxury Mercedes convertible.

[killer_taxi]

I give up. I don't want to do this anymore.

[XR Martin]

NSX vs some impressive cars ;) R34 GTR certainly has some grunt, but not the handling of the Honda. Granted these are all modded cars but still...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkJAv...elated&search=

[Steffo]

Interesting vid. Not so great to showcase how good the NSX is. Who knows how good the drivers were, how modded each car was etc. There was, what appeared to be a stock 993 Carrera in the field.

That one sounded pretty nice though.

[killer_taxi]

Look at this video Steffo: http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=828

Although, it still probably wont do any good.

[MITCHAY]

Just for fun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnTIBe77Prw

Keiichi Tsuchiya aka "Drift King". I have not watched one of his videos that wasn't entertaining.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Interesting vid. Not so great to showcase how good the NSX is. Who knows how good the drivers were, how modded each car was etc. There was, what appeared to be a stock 993 Carrera in the field.

That one sounded pretty nice though.

This ones even better :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV-AG...elated&search=

[monaroCountry]

I find it a joke that people call the NSX "Japan's only supercar," which the GT-R Skyline absolutley destroyed them in every possible aspect of performance.

Steffo the GTR is in many ways overrated...............the myth that surrounds skylines are huge. The low porsche beating ring times for the GTR were also scrubbed out of the official time sheet (as far as I know) when they found that the car wasnt as stock as what they were led to believe (suspension tuning etc). I find it very hard to believe a stock GTR especially the newer ones achieving a time of 4.1-4.9 (0-100km) and mid to high 12 seconds. Many will also claim that GTR's have around 270kw, that their official 208kw tune have been under rated...........BS. There might be some GTRs with higher outputs but it wouldnt be the norm. My guess is that the ones with the higher output have been fiddled with and are no longer factory stock.

Have a look at this recent autospeed review
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_107739/article.html
.......................
"Is the GT-R still king? King of what? - that's the real question. As a track car, the GT-R has proven itself beyond a doubt. As a road car it's not nearly so formidable - especially when you consider what other equally fast cars you can buy for about the same cash. But for many people, it's hard to get past the fact that it is a GT-R."

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by monaroCountry

Steffo the GTR is in many ways overrated...............the myth that surrounds skylines are huge. The low porsche beating ring times for the GTR were also scrubbed out of the official time sheet (as far as I know) when they found that the car wasnt as stock as what they were led to believe (suspension tuning etc). I find it very hard to believe a stock GTR especially the newer ones achieving a time of 4.1-4.9 (0-100km) and mid to high 12 seconds. Many will also claim that GTR's have around 270kw, that their official 208kw tune have been under rated...........BS. There might be some GTRs with higher outputs but it wouldnt be the norm. My guess is that the ones with the higher output have been fiddled with and are no longer factory stock.

Have a look at this recent autospeed review
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_107739/article.html
.......................
"Is the GT-R still king? King of what? - that's the real question. As a track car, the GT-R has proven itself beyond a doubt. As a road car it's not nearly so formidable - especially when you consider what other equally fast cars you can buy for about the same cash. But for many people, it's hard to get past the fact that it is a GT-R."

The 270kW claims for GT-R's are total BS.

With R34, this is what the real power figures at the fly were more like...

GT-R = 206-209kW

GT-R V-Spec/M-Spec/Nur = 224-226kW

GT-R N1 = 245kW

By that stage (1999-2002) the 206kW "power cap," was a joke, and they simply rated cars for the domestic market at that level as a tax evasion measure. They weren't the only ones who practised this, but it is the most famous car that did.

And no GT-R does 4.1 0-100km/h.

R34 did 4.9, R33 did 5.3, R32 did 4.8.

Yes, they are quite overrated too. As are Honda NSX's, Toyota Supra's, Mazda RX-7's and all the top Japanese sports cars. They're overrated by the people who like them, who think they're the best there is. The Fast & Furious generation, who make things up to justify themselves. They're OK cars, but none is really spectacular in any way.

[Rev28K]

You ever driven an NSX Steffo? I have on public roads, not intimidating at all. You ever driven one on a track?

I fluked an invite to the 3.2 litre NSX introduction at Sandown years ago. The car was so safe and friendly to use as well as being very quick and competent. Had hot laps on my own and with the race drivers that were there on the day. Jack Brabham was very quick around the track in it. I agree that it was kept on the market for too long and the price crept up and up until it was a joke. But in it’s day against the opposition of the time it was pretty good. I’d rate the 911 as the only comparable “everyday” supercar. It certainly shocked Ferrari in to lifting their game.

For the record I’ve had a few laps of Calder in a Lotus Esprit Turbo (quickish but was a bit fragile according to the owner), laps at Winton in a 1996 Carrera 2 911 (that car can take a beating and was very quick) and recently a Ferrari 355 Challenge (seemed a very capable user friendly and fast car). At the time that it was introduced (3.0 litre) and the first time that it was updated (3.2 litre) the NSX was every bit as good as the (sometimes feeble) competition.

Enough with the Jap beating and idolising. Admire (or degenerate) the cars for what they are, not for what you perceive them to be.

[MITCHAY]

Overrated? Not anymore than anything that is dished out from Australia.

[killer_taxi]

Bravo Rev29K. Nicely said.

Steffo, your last paragraph is taking things to far. You’re making yourself sound very anti-Japanese (which I guess you are). To say cars like the Skyline, NSX, Supra, RX-7 (and probably to your thinking, also the Lancer Evo and Impreza STi) are overrated is crazy. Could you please explain what has been overrated about these cars? Is there something wrong with them being cut price super cars (available to average people)? Is there something wrong with the way they look? Is there something wrong with how fast they go? Is there something wrong with the way they handle? Is there something wrong with extra reliability? Is there something wrong with not having a Porsche, BMW, or Ferrari badge? Is there something wrong with them being different? These Japanese cars are good in their own right. To admire their achievements, doesn’t mean you’re forced to desire them.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by killer_taxi

Bravo Rev29K. Nicely said.

Steffo, your last paragraph is taking things to far. You’re making yourself sound very anti-Japanese (which I guess you are). To say cars like the Skyline, NSX, Supra, RX-7 (and probably to your thinking, also the Lancer Evo and Impreza STi) are overrated is crazy. Could you please explain what has been overrated about these cars? Is there something wrong with them being cut price super cars (available to average people)? Is there something wrong with the way they look? Is there something wrong with how fast they go? Is there something wrong with the way they handle? Is there something wrong with extra reliability? Is there something wrong with not having a Porsche, BMW, or Ferrari badge? Is there something wrong with them being different? These Japanese cars are good in their own right. To admire their achievements, doesn’t mean you’re forced to desire them.

Me, anti-Japanese? Right. I learned Japanese since I was in Year 4, and studied Japanese history and culture for many years, had/have Japanese friends and what not. Anti-Japanese cars is a different story. And even then I'm not really anti-Japanese car, I'm more against the outrageous claims that surround them.

Go around, to your average group of people, aged 17-25, mildly to very interested in cars, and ask them what they think's faster. Skyline GT-R or <insert anything else here.> Just the other day some friends of mine were trying to convince me that the R34 GT-R is one of the best performing cars of all time, and virtually nothing except a Ferrari Enzo or Porsche 911 GT2 is capable of outperforming one. Right.

And it doesn't end at Skyline. WRX. Evo series. Supra Twin Turbo (JZA80 especially). And the NSX is not out of trouble either.

Some publications have greatly overrated them in the past too. Don't forget, magazine writers are not without their own bias either.

You yourself are going a bit far with what you're saying. Cut price supercars? Hardly. The STi and Evo, which have been the cheapest for a long time, are actually quite expensive for what is basically an Impreza and Lancer with suspension work and power. The Nissan 350Z if very expensive for what it is. The Mazda RX-8 too. The NSX was a complete rip off. By 2002 it was priced so far out of its league.... 50k more expensive then a Carrera S which was faster, seats 4 (in theory - lol) and is more reliable and economical.

No one has actually ever bothered to ask me what kind of Japanese cars I like, just argue with me to defend the most famous and overhyped models and then get angry when I don't agree on their greatness.

Oh and the extra reliability comment. That's just funny. :

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

You ever driven an NSX Steffo? I have on public roads, not intimidating at all. You ever driven one on a track?

I fluked an invite to the 3.2 litre NSX introduction at Sandown years ago. The car was so safe and friendly to use as well as being very quick and competent. Had hot laps on my own and with the race drivers that were there on the day. Jack Brabham was very quick around the track in it. I agree that it was kept on the market for too long and the price crept up and up until it was a joke. But in it’s day against the opposition of the time it was pretty good. I’d rate the 911 as the only comparable “everyday” supercar. It certainly shocked Ferrari in to lifting their game.

For the record I’ve had a few laps of Calder in a Lotus Esprit Turbo (quickish but was a bit fragile according to the owner), laps at Winton in a 1996 Carrera 2 911 (that car can take a beating and was very quick) and recently a Ferrari 355 Challenge (seemed a very capable user friendly and fast car). At the time that it was introduced (3.0 litre) and the first time that it was updated (3.2 litre) the NSX was every bit as good as the (sometimes feeble) competition.

Enough with the Jap beating and idolising. Admire (or degenerate) the cars for what they are, not for what you perceive them to be.

I'm glad you agree with me on two things I've said. #1 the NSX was a good car when it came out. #2 it was un-touched for so long that it lagged so far behind everyone else and became so expensive that it was a joke.

I haven't driven an NSX no. Haven't had the opportunity, if offered I wouldn't turn it down though. Then again, I'd take the opportunity to drive almost anything, I like trying different cars out.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Steffo

You yourself are going a bit far with what you're saying. Cut price supercars? Hardly. The STi and Evo, which have been the cheapest for a long time, are actually quite expensive for what is basically an Impreza and Lancer with suspension work and power. The Nissan 350Z if very expensive for what it is. The Mazda RX-8 too .

Steffo have to disagree re. the comments regarding STI and EVO - I wouldnt call them "supercars" but I think they are pretty cheap for the type of stock performance they can lay down - nothing under $100K is going to come close to either performance package wise and maintain the bonus of reliability, economy and resale.

I do agree that the 350Z and Rx8 are overpriced though.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by merlin

Steffo have to disagree re. the comments regarding STI and EVO - I wouldnt call them "supercars" but I think they are pretty cheap for the type of stock performance they can lay down - nothing under $100K is going to come close to either performance package wise and maintain the bonus of reliability, economy and resale.

I do agree that the 350Z and Rx8 are overpriced though.

I agree


Steffo I own a WRX and it is not just an Impreza with power and suspension. The STi is a completely different car again.

If you were to pay to turbo a base Impreza and set it up to what the WRX is standard you would might aswell buy a WRX!

If you want to play that card than what is a HSV or FPV. Is it just a Commodore/Falcon with power and suspension?

Regarding outrageous claims from the unknowing, you get the same with every crowd be it Ford, Holden, Subaru, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Kia etc.

[killer_taxi]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Me, anti-Japanese? Right. I learned Japanese since I was in Year 4, and studied Japanese history and culture for many years, had/have Japanese friends and what not. Anti-Japanese cars is a different story. And even then I'm not really anti-Japanese car, I'm more against the outrageous claims that surround them.

Go around, to your average group of people, aged 17-25, mildly to very interested in cars, and ask them what they think's faster. Skyline GT-R or <insert anything else here.> Just the other day some friends of mine were trying to convince me that the R34 GT-R is one of the best performing cars of all time, and virtually nothing except a Ferrari Enzo or Porsche 911 GT2 is capable of outperforming one. Right.

And it doesn't end at Skyline. WRX. Evo series. Supra Twin Turbo (JZA80 especially). And the NSX is not out of trouble either.

Some publications have greatly overrated them in the past too. Don't forget, magazine writers are not without their own bias either.

You yourself are going a bit far with what you're saying. Cut price supercars? Hardly. The STi and Evo, which have been the cheapest for a long time, are actually quite expensive for what is basically an Impreza and Lancer with suspension work and power. The Nissan 350Z if very expensive for what it is. The Mazda RX-8 too. The NSX was a complete rip off. By 2002 it was priced so far out of its league.... 50k more expensive then a Carrera S which was faster, seats 4 (in theory - lol) and is more reliable and economical.

No one has actually ever bothered to ask me what kind of Japanese cars I like, just argue with me to defend the most famous and overhyped models and then get angry when I don't agree on their greatness.

Oh and the extra reliability comment. That's just funny. :

Steffo, playground talk about cars like this is irrelevant as far as I’m censured. I’d have to admit though that people believing that a particular car is a god, is funny.

What publications have overrated them? Were they out of place with how they rated the cars? Could this also mean that they have overrated Porsches as well? I wouldn’t think so.

Ok, Sorry, wrong word. I’ll change the word ‘supercar’ to ‘performance car‘. Geez. I wasn’t going to compare a STi to an Enzo!

STi and Evo to expensive? The only way to go faster is spend $150,000+ on a European brand (or buy a FPV or HSV of course). Which is fine, but not everyone can afford such expensive cars. The STi with an rrp of $56,990 and the Evo with an rrp of $56,789 is too expensive for cars that can do the 0-400m in less than 14 seconds? How much should they cost? I have to agree and say that the 350Z is too expensive by 5-10k. Don’t know about the RX-8, I’d call it the alternative choice. NSX, well in 2002 yes it was way to expensive. It was a different sorry back in 1990. Honda just kept making the NSX for to long (doesn‘t mean it was a bad however, does it?).

Evo and STi are just a Lancer and Impreza with improved suspension and power? I guess the same would apply to the Audi RS4, BMW M3, BMW M5, FPV’s, HSV’s, and AMG’s?

Please Steffo, tell me what Japanese cars you like. I’d be interested to know what you do like.

I was getting frustrated by you continually calling them overrated. That’s just not fair. I can’t see your logic or reason for making that claim (besides school ground talk). I don’t know if you meant to or not, but your comments continue to bring down these cars credibility. Please give me actual reasons to why these cars are over rated.

Reliability. I was wrong in what I said? Read this for example: http://nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/Surveys.htm . Or how about this: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...cleID=417&vf=1 , http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...cleID=735&vf=1 . Maybe this: http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/to...28339010848601 . Read this: http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...mktNews&rpc=44 . Japanese reliability is a myth?

[killer_taxi]

Here’s a point to add to the issue regarding the value of the Evo and WRX. Motor Magazines Bang For Your Bucks was won by the WRX 4 times (1998, 1999, 2002, and 2005) and the Lancer Evo won it in 2004.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by killer_taxi

Steffo, playground talk about cars like this is irrelevant as far as I’m censured. I’d have to admit though that people believing that a particular car is a god, is funny.

What publications have overrated them? Were they out of place with how they rated the cars? Could this also mean that they have overrated Porsches as well? I wouldn’t think so.

Ok, Sorry, wrong word. I’ll change the word ‘supercar’ to ‘performance car‘. Geez. I wasn’t going to compare a STi to an Enzo!

STi and Evo to expensive? The only way to go faster is spend $150,000+ on a European brand (or buy a FPV or HSV of course). Which is fine, but not everyone can afford such expensive cars. The STi with an rrp of $56,990 and the Evo with an rrp of $56,789 is too expensive for cars that can do the 0-400m in less than 14 seconds? How much should they cost? I have to agree expensive. It was a different sorry back in 1990. Honda just kept making theand say that the 350Z is too expensive by 5-10k. Don’t know about the RX-8, I’d call it the alternative choice. NSX, well in 2002 yes it was way to NSX for to long (doesn‘t mean it was a bad however, does it?).

Evo and STi are just a Lancer and Impreza with improved suspension and power? I guess the same would apply to the Audi RS4, BMW M3, BMW M5, FPV’s, HSV’s, and AMG’s?

Please Steffo, tell me what Japanese cars you like. I’d be interested to know what you do like.

I was getting frustrated by you continually calling them overrated. That’s just not fair. I can’t see your logic or reason for making that claim (besides school ground talk). I don’t know if you meant to or not, but your comments continue to bring down these cars credibility. Please give me actual reasons to why these cars are over rated.

Reliability. I was wrong in what I said? Read this for example: http://nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/Surveys.htm . Or how about this: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...cleID=417&vf=1 , http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...cleID=735&vf=1 . Maybe this: http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/to...28339010848601 . Read this: http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...mktNews&rpc=44 . Japanese reliability is a myth?

You can go faster then an STi or Evo for less then $150k. An F6 Typhoon is faster in the real world (track would depend on its configuration, something like the Nurburgring would favour the F6, something tight the other two). For $53,990 you can have a VW Golf R32, which is as fast as those two, more reliable and cheaper! It will also hold its value better over time. Yes, the two are quite excellent value for money, especially for trackwork, but for similar money I'd take the R32 any day of the week. Pretty much equal straight line performance, perhaps a little bit of a deficit on the track, but the trade of is far better on-road useability.

And yes. RS4, M3, M5, FPV, HSV etc are simply the base car with improved performance orientated hardware. They all still share the same basic chassis, which counts for alot. They're not stand alone sports cars like a 911, Cayman, F430, Elise and whatnot.

As for Jap cars I like... gladly...

Subaru Liberty 3.0R (and the new shape Liberity, though this is my fav model)
Toyota Landcruiser 100-Series
Nissan Skyline Coupe's R32-R34 (all versions)
Nissan Silvia S13-S15
Mazda 3
Mazda 6
Mazda RX-7 FD (the looks, not the engine)
Toyota Townace SBV (they're actually nice/comfortable to drive)
Mazda E-Series/Ford Econovan (a given )
Mazda 323/Ford Laser
Mazda Eunos 500
Mazda Eunos 800
Lexus IS300
Late 90s Lexus GS300
Mazda MX-6
Mazda MX-5 (new shape)
Toyota RAV4
Suzuki Grand Vitara
Subaru Impreza WRX MY01-MY05 <all variants>

There are probably more, but that's all I could think of for now.

Publications to overrate these cars are many. Wheels & Motor are not out of the crosshair. But then, they're not the only cars to be overrated. Many European cars are too, the E46 M3 for example, and yes, I've been in one of those. The M5 has been glorified by media-hype for the best part of the last decade now. Moreso the new V10 version then any before it.

As for statistics on Jap reliability. Statistics can be made to say anything, what I see in the real world I judge by.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I agree


Steffo I own a WRX and it is not just an Impreza with power and suspension. The STi is a completely different car again.

If you were to pay to turbo a base Impreza and set it up to what the WRX is standard you would might aswell buy a WRX!

If you want to play that card than what is a HSV or FPV. Is it just a Commodore/Falcon with power and suspension?

Regarding outrageous claims from the unknowing, you get the same with every crowd be it Ford, Holden, Subaru, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Kia etc.

FPV's are tarted up XT's, always have been and will be.

The chassis is the same, there is no change major enough to warrant it being called a different car. Its the same car, faster.

A major change like Corvette C6 -> Corvette Z06 (going front engine to front-mid engine, for example) would warrant it. Or a major change to the chassis. These cars are good, sure, but they're undeniably economy cars at the core. Just sitting in them screams that out. Though I do quite like the late model WRX interiors.

[killer_taxi]

I did say, “or buy a FPV or HSV of course”. I couldn’t see an F6 beating a STi or Evo on any track (apart from an oval). The weight difference is huge and the STi and Evo get the added benefit of AWD grip. I could be wrong, but on a track like the Nurburgring with so many corners, the Evo and STi being able to carry more corner speed would be able to keep the speed up. The R32 did pop into my mind. However, after checking some performance figures I found that it wasn’t quite as fast as the STi and Evo (around a second slower everywhere).

With the differences between entry models and top of the range performance models (examples: Lancer, Impreza, Falcon, A4, 3-Series), you’re simplifying it way too much. There’s more to it then just slapping on some stiff suspension and throwing in a more powerful motor. For example, you see companies like AMG and BMW M division at the Nurburgring testing out their cars around the track to perfect there handling and performance. There are hours upon hours of testing. Parts have to be engineered, tested, configured, then made to work together in a reliable product.

Furthermore, I think it would be best if we agree to disagree. I’m not agreeing with most things your saying and I think things are likewise over on the other end. So I’ll leave it there and move on.

Peace.

[monaroCountry]

Regarding the GTR's sub 8 minute supposed record, here is the true story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The times below were set by professional european drivers who have vast experiences driving fast cars and driving around the ring.

Aparently the sub 8 min skyline had full slicks, non standard boost and chipped computer, limiters removed.

AUTOCAR NURBURGRING ARTICLE


The Caterham's rear tyres howl in protest as I stroke its nose deftly through the Nurburgring's final corner. The crowd rises to its feet and a sea of Union Jacks are waved as I cross the line in record time. Then, through the mayhem, someone hands me a huge white telephone, ringing out above the cacophony...

Monday, 4.50am: the bedside alarm rudely terminates my dream and I remember that there's a new Porsche 911 parked outside. My aim today is to cross the Channel and drive to the Nordschleife in Germany to meet the men from Caterham, as well as a legend called Stefan and his extraordinary "Yellow Bird" Ruf Porsche.

Our goal could scarcely be more simple. We want to break the production car lap record for the famous old 12.95-mile Nurburgring. Currently it stands at 7min 59sec, set by a Nissan Skyline GTR in 1995. But given that the Skyline set the time during its development stage and was free of the speed limiter that prevents UK versions from doing more than 156mph, we can no longer count it as the true production car record holder. Especially as it's far from clear how much turbo boost the GTR was running during the lap, or how much tweaking the rear-wheel steer system had undergone.

So for these reasons and more, the standard production car lap record will no longer belong to the Skyline after this event; it will instead hold the record for a modified road car. Unless, of course, the unchipped, unfettled GTR that colleague Allan Muir is due to arrive in tomorrow can match, or perhaps better, that 7min 59sec time...



Caterham Superlight R: 8min 6.2sec

Ruf CTR II: 8min 15.0sec

Nissan $kyline GTR: 8min 28.1 sec

Porsche 911 Carrera: 8min 38.4sec

Thanks to Bridgestone for all its tyres

Article written by Stephen Sutcliffe.

From Autocar 17th December 1997.
http://www.caterham.force9.co.uk/ring.htm

[MITCHAY]

So the limiter was removed? How else do you expect it to beat cars that aren't restricted unless the top speed achievable for any car on that circuit is less than what the limit is set at? Still faster than the Carrera too.