Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser
EJ: From what I have read, I stand by my statements earlier. What I read was that it was not Rohrl who did the testing, otherwise I would have VERY MUCH so believed that this was a case of sandbagging. I personally don't care whether the GTR or 911 is faster, as I wouldn't ever be in a position to be racing one unmodified anyways. All I'm saying is that believing that this test is some how "proof" of the argument one way or another is crazy. It will take probably another year before we have some definitive proof of whether or not this car is really what they say it is, but Nissan has always lowballed horsepower figures for their cars. There are badly running S30 Z's with stock L24's who can still put down 120hp to the rear wheels on dynos. I have seen a few completely restored L24's putting down almost 150 at the wheels, which is roughly the rating Nissan gave the 240z as crank horsepower. Nissan has a decent history about "fudging" horsepower numbers to sneak cars under the radar of the Japanese government too. Lastly, you have the frustrating fact that EVERY SINGLE GTR ENGINE is unique. Each engine is hand-assembled by one of a crew of techs, different techs assembling different engines. There are racing teams who care less about the engine than that.

I again say: This is a VERY bad way of taking a comparison test. There's EVERY possibility that the Porsche driver simply bagged the runs for any number of reasons, not the least of which is simply taking his foot off the gas too soon at every corner. With a track as long as the ring is, repeated small mistakes can be as fatal to lap times as a singular but obvious f-up.
I get the feeling that you are putting me on the side of the GTR's defence which is not the case. I have yet to really look up everything for myself since i have been busy. You might be right about the "easy" driving a Porsche man might have done. We'll find out sooner or later.