ISF Nurburgring Time - 8:03
05-16-10, 10:25 AM
#31
Dude, cmon really???
Have a peek at the Top Gear test times?....really.
I enjoy my F as much as the next guy, but really, cmon....if you want to justify the Top Gear test track as meaningful you're kidding yourself.
We were discussing Top Gear, not Wiki, my point was that the Top Gear list only includes models, not model years. They've got a GT-R, LF-A, and R8 V10 on the list so why would we assume they haven't tested a more recent 997 GT3???
If you think that the F has a shot against a regular GT3 vs. a GT3 RS on a track you are clearly deluding yourself.
If the Top Gear times only include an 11 year old 996 GT3, as you suggest, they're incredibly out of date and even more lame.
Have a peek at the Top Gear test times?....really.
I enjoy my F as much as the next guy, but really, cmon....if you want to justify the Top Gear test track as meaningful you're kidding yourself.
We were discussing Top Gear, not Wiki, my point was that the Top Gear list only includes models, not model years. They've got a GT-R, LF-A, and R8 V10 on the list so why would we assume they haven't tested a more recent 997 GT3???
If you think that the F has a shot against a regular GT3 vs. a GT3 RS on a track you are clearly deluding yourself.
If the Top Gear times only include an 11 year old 996 GT3, as you suggest, they're incredibly out of date and even more lame.
that was an older gt3 wasnt it?
the top gear one was wet, i thought?
the gt3 RS clearly smoked it, im not disputing that, im looking at it saying, it could be feasible, since the top gear one was a wet track for the gt3, and the original post talks about wiki, where the isf also tied an older GT3 8/1999(assuming it was a 99 gt3)? and in the same link a gt3 RS ran a 7:47, 16 seconds faster than the supposed 8:03 of the F, isnt that what this thread is titled, arent we talking about the 8:03 it ran around the 'ring? isnt that the issue?
so if thats the issue, im saying, by looking at these top gear times, and wiki 'ring times, it could be feasible. especially since the top gear test was on a damp/wet track, and the OP 'ring time on a 99 gt3 was the same as the F
and if the top gear times, mean nothing, the 'ring times mean nothing, what is a meaningful time? tell me what is a good basis to judge the performance of our cars? i mean, every magazine, every video, every test could be thrown out because its inaccurate? or because its for TV, or because its in a magazine?
this video test the m3, gtr, and gt3(new model, which should be much faster than the older one),
the M3 is 3 seconds off the gt3, and 3.4 seconds off the GTR, and if the F is a second or 2 behind the M3, i think thats pretty impressive...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jotM3cKQQ
not saying im going to go smoke a GT3 around a track, however i am saying, i think you should give the F a little more credit, as i dont think it would be too far off of it, considering the M3 wasnt.... if you take in to consideration that the 2010 ISF is a second or 2 faster around a track than the one with out the LSD, then its not far off at all or too far fetched.
bottom line is the F deserves more credit, is it going to beat a GTR, or a GT3, or an f430, of course not, however, it wont get destroyed around a track either tho.
all this info in the videos, wiki, topgear, magazines, ect is all hear-say and none of it is 100% accurate, and youll always find a loophole or something to discredit the info. just be excited we drive pretty fast impressive cars that can hang with the best of them!
Last edited by USBM2011; 05-16-10 at 11:06 AM.
05-16-10, 12:52 PM
#34
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 3,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ISF w/ LSD is said to lap 2 seconds faster around Fuji. Granted, Fuji, Top Gear's test track and the nordschleife are 3 very different types of tracks, I'd estimate that it'd cut at least a second off it's top gear time and perhaps 8-10 seconds off it's ring time, perhaps more considering Fuji has one of the longest GP straights in the world and most of the corners are not very tight (more power would make a bigger difference than improved handling there).
05-16-10, 06:00 PM
#35
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: ontario
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
track record
Well the CTS-V did break the record as the worlds fastest sedan at 7:59 seconds by a part time race driver . I don't believe you would shave off 15 seconds with a lsd rear end , alot of the german track is hills and long sweeping turns with a few tight turns so really no advantage here for a lsd equipt car .
05-16-10, 08:08 PM
#36
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Stig begs to differ. 
IMO, while Top Gear may not be...the be all and end all of performance car testing, there's still substance in all that sizzle. Those numbers can't be totally discounted.
Now, I'd like to think most F-owners aren't delusional enough to try and prove the performance superiority of the F over the GT3, but it's highly plausible that the LSD-equipped F can come close to matching the E90 M3 saloon track time.
IMO, while Top Gear may not be...the be all and end all of performance car testing, there's still substance in all that sizzle. Those numbers can't be totally discounted.
Now, I'd like to think most F-owners aren't delusional enough to try and prove the performance superiority of the F over the GT3, but it's highly plausible that the LSD-equipped F can come close to matching the E90 M3 saloon track time.
05-16-10, 08:45 PM
#37
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 3,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the CTS-V did break the record as the worlds fastest sedan at 7:59 seconds by a part time race driver . I don't believe you would shave off 15 seconds with a lsd rear end , alot of the german track is hills and long sweeping turns with a few tight turns so really no advantage here for a lsd equipt car .
05-16-10, 09:00 PM
#38
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Besides all that, there are no "official" records for Nurburgring times. And Radical owns the street legal category with a 6:55 run.
05-16-10, 10:12 PM
#39
.... thats what i'm sayin... i agree 100%!
-the GT3 in the OP wiki TIED the supposed ISF time of 8:03 round the 'ring
(old, 8/1999, probably a 1999 GT3, 360hp(much less power than the new one, and probably worse tires, and traction in 1999))
- and in the video link i put up, the M3 is 3 seconds off the NEW GT3.
-entirely possible that the F does indeed TIE the old GT3 around the ring, especially if the 8:03 time was with the new 2010 ISF with the LSD, that supposedly gains 2-3 seconds around Fuji over the 08-09 ISF, which puts the ISF damn close to the M3.
Of course the new GT3, and the GT3 RS will indeed be faster than the ISF.
It surprises me how many people on this forum dont even give their own car any credit. I mean shoot! Have some pride!
Im running with the 8:03!!!! Ill take it!
05-16-10, 10:30 PM
#40
Lexus Champion
Like I said initially, I would love for it to be true, but you don't find it odd that over the course of the past 4 days not one member has been able to post a link validating that time?
05-16-10, 11:00 PM
#41
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It surprise me how many people are blindly willing to trust a number that ZERO people have been able to confirm.
Like I said initially, I would love for it to be true, but you don't find it odd that over the course of the past 4 days not one member has been able to post a link validating that time?
Like I said initially, I would love for it to be true, but you don't find it odd that over the course of the past 4 days not one member has been able to post a link validating that time?
05-16-10, 11:04 PM
#42
It surprise me how many people are blindly willing to trust a number that ZERO people have been able to confirm.
Like I said initially, I would love for it to be true, but you don't find it odd that over the course of the past 4 days not one member has been able to post a link validating that time?
Like I said initially, I would love for it to be true, but you don't find it odd that over the course of the past 4 days not one member has been able to post a link validating that time?
Even if it isnt true, thats ok with me. I can also say the other ones on there arent true if I want, because I havent seen videos of them either...
So no, I dont find it ODD, and yes I do find it exciting, and cool to know that my car could potentially hang with some of these seriously fast cars out there.
I guess the only real proof or documentation that can really be taken seriously would be to take your personal car to the 'ring and run it, or inspect the said car prior to the run, and watch it live.
Because technically they can alter the videos too, or have some mod done to the car they dont mention to make it appear faster.
cant keep constantly analyzing this and picking apart every little thing...
thats like looking at some of the timeslips or dyno charts people post on here ,and saying thats not actually their real time, or real power, or picking apart every little thing to discredit it... just roll with it be happy.
hell add 10 seconds to the 8:03, make it 8:13 im still happy with it, cuz it still ties the c63, m5, and a f355 GTB, and is right behind an M6, RS4, and Viper GTS! (IF WE ADDED 10 Seconds to the 8:03, and made it 8:13, for the sake of argument) it still hangs with some damn quick cars!
Where will it stop? What kind of evidence do you need, and if that evidence somehow comes up will you guys then say that evidence was altered and it still cant be true? lol
Last edited by USBM2011; 05-16-10 at 11:11 PM.
