Are The Japanese Poised to Dethrone the 911 AND the Z06?

bigmclargehuge

That test was performed by AutoCar British Car Magazine itself. They removed the speed limiter, but otherwise they give no reason to believe they ran a dishonest lap. There were drivers and journalists as witnesses.

AutoCar

The rest is speculation made up by skeptics. I think its funny that Chevy's manufacturer claim of 7:59 with the C6 Z51 wasn't disputed.

Racing is 99% driver ability anyway. Sure you have to be in a car capable of making the time. But look at how often the Z06 has been tested, and how no other driver has come close to 7:42. One lucky guy, one good day on the track. 13 miles without being able to make a mistake.

Sure, anyone who buys the Z06 can pretend its a 7:42 car in their hands, but thats not really true is it.

I'm not particularly biased one way or the other. If the R34 was being sold in the US when the Z06 came out, I'd argue in favor of the Corvette being a notch above.

But technically since the R32 was developed in Japan in the late '80's, halfway through the product lifecycle of the C4 Corvette, the GT-R was actually years ahead of the Corvette. Then the C6 Corvette Z06 took it to the next level. I'm trying to please mutiple arguments by saying I think they are on equal footing, but if history repeats itself the GT-R is indeed poised to take the competition to the next level.

WAIT AND SEE! Nobody is going to be proven right in a forum.

lemmer

with the same magazine (German magazine Sport Auto) testing the cars:

New GT-R: 7:55
Current Z-06: 7:49
911 GT3 (997): 7:48

In the interest of full disclosure of any bias, I'll tell you that I currently own a Porsche and have previously owned two Z's.

bigmclargehuge

Actually Sport Auto ran more than one lap, the best being 7:50. They themselves claimed that the track was partially wet, but that they did a good lap. For a summer lap, they predict equal to but no less than 7:40.

We already know of another 3,800lb+ car that has done a 7:40. There's also a 4200lb car that did it in the same time (yes, with 1000hp, but it still has to be able to corner) Bottom line, weight isn't everything.

I actually prefer lighter cars, but a fact's a fact. The R35 is fast. 7:50 is confirmed, in the winter of its release. The times are only going to get faster from here.

If the R35 car hits 7:42:9 exactly I'm going to LMAO.

pmc4

The following chart is the dynograph of the GT-R:



Notice the irregular power delivery. Also what's of note is the narrow power curve, where 90% of the power is delivered in a very narrow band between 3,000 RPM and 5,900 RPM. What's also of note is the unfortunate and unused horsepower climb well after the limits of the engine's RPM redline is reached, suggesting premature tuning of the engine before it was brought to market.
This dynograph shows the true limitations of strangling a small DOHC powerplant with two turbochargers.

The next chart is of the LS7, the smallblock that powers the Z06 Corvette. Notice first off the near linear power delivery by what could be the smoothest torque curve of any engine in the industry. Also, 90% of power delivery occurs between 3,100 RPM and 6,800 RPM, making the engine deliver broader power than the Nissan engine by a very wide margin.
Unlike the Nissan engine, horsepower drops off nicely with the engine's redline.



Have fun!

pmc4

i'll return tomorow for the expination about the slr mclaren... until then...

bigmclargehuge

You are obviously grasping at straws at this point.

First off, there are huge differences in the way a dynojet and a mustang dyno measure power and torque. If you can find 2 dynojet readings of both stock cars then we can have a discussion on it.

Plus, I can find a well-calibrated dynometer reading on the R35 as well. And the GT-R's redline is 7K. You can't see that on either dyno graph cutout. You're really not making a valid argument by providing 1/2 the necessary data.

R35 dyno

Second, American V8s in general, and to no exception the Corvette still have pathetic specific power outputs. A decent European V8 will put out well over 100hp/liter. The GT-R's engine size is anything but strangled. The 2.86L I-6 in the R-32 to R-34 was factory de-tuned to keep from violating a gentlemen's agreement with Mitsu, Suby Toyo, and Honda, in which no GT car should exceed 280hp. It was actually a 400hp engine in original design. This new 3.8L V-6 has gone on the same dyno as a Porsche Turbo and has an almost identical power output and delivery, from a similar size.

If you like the smooth power delivery thats great, but it doesn't seem to matter. The only technical considerations that seem to matter are the faster 0-60, 1/4-mile, slalom, skidpad tests the R35 has over the Z06.

What excuse do you have for the SLR beating the Z06 around the 'Ring? I hope its good, since the 2-ton SLR tested at a faster 0-60 and 1/4-mile than the 'Vette as well. Same power/weight ratio but 800lbs heavier and both RWD. I think contrary to whatever you come up with, the answer is simply that the SLR has a better suspension and rear differential.

And while we're on the subject, the SLR actually has a much more attractive power curve IMHO.
SLR graph

roadburner

Well that makes it official you have no idea what you are talking about.

Exactly.

A V6 is a cost cutting measure and thats it.

You can also use a V6 in both a transverse and a longitudinal installation.

The inline 6 is a better design but costs more money. You can get a low center of gravity with an inline 6 simply by mounting it at an angle like BMW does.

You also give up some crumple space as the inline is a longer engine; that's one of the reasons why BMW sets the engine so far back relative to the front of the car. In any case, those drawbacks are overshadowed by the excellence of the inline 6 configuration.

kernick

I remember many manufacturers used to take their cars to a track and run them flat-out for 24-hours, to see how well they handled sustained high-speeds, and how many miles they could ultimately go. Indianapolis or Talladega would be a good venue.
This is a good measure not just of what a driver can do in 1 lap, but it factors in mpg, drag, and wear on tires, amongst other things.

That would be interesting data to have on the cars also. I remember reading in 1 of the car magazines where BMW's twin-turbo in their 3-series, ran a few good laps, and then embarrassingly overheated after those laps, and went into limp-mode. How well would these cars do when run near red-line for 24 hours? Maybe that's why the M-3 is now a V-8 with increased displacement over the last version?

british_rover

You can also use a V6 in both a transverse and a longitudinal installation.

Ahh yes that used to be true and that was the main reason why the V6 was so dominant for so long because of packaging concerns in FWD cars but...

Volvo has inline 6 cars with a transverse setup now.

The new 3.2 or 3.0 liter inline six they have can be mounted longitudinal or transverse by using the READ(Rear end Ancillary Drive) System.

That inline six is used in the S80, XC70, V70 and the Land Rover LR2.

The whole engine is about 23.5 inches long and in the LR2 at least there is over a foot of just empty space behind the engine for crumple zone room. I am sure the Volvos are like that too but I haven't poked around them as much as the LR2.

Because of that huge crumple zone the LR2 was the first small SUV to score five stars on the Euro NCAP test.
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/land_rover_freelander_2007/286.aspx

bumpy

Volvo did make a transverse I6, but they had to sling the entire transmission behind the engine Toronado-style, make it massively undersquare, and needed their largest platform to put it in.

pmc4

The Mclaren 722GT posting its 7:30 or so I can understand, because it's a lightweight, athletic GT car. The standard Mercedes Benz SLR, however, would most certainly have an improbable time getting a 7:40 time around the Ring because the car is a behemoth that weighs in at like 3,900 pounds.
I'm not the only one either, since the only source that claims a 7:40 time for the SLR is Autobild, and even they admit the time is improbable and unofficial; not meant to be taken seriously.

In other words, the two-ton SLR making it around the Ring in 7:40 is as unlikely and as scientific as the Nissan GT-R making it around the Ring in 7:35.

We can't believe anything the mfr does without at least one witness. Here's Autobild, on the SLR's 7:40 time and I quote:

"Quite close at the limit lies the values which drove walter Roehrl with the Porsche and Klaus Ludwig with the Mercedes during testing and which just as unofficial is as meaningful: Ludwig created with the SLR impressing 7,40 minutes - and Roehrl drosch the Carrera GT in hardly conceivable 7,28 around the course."

And it all makes sense. A two-ton slower luxury GT car gets 7:40 when that same car stripped of everything to bring weight doen to 2,900 pounds gets about the same result? C'mon, now! That's as believeable as the 7:35 time for the GT-R!

I could find no more on this SLR achieving the 7:40 time any where else except this one magazine report: link title

This is far more realistic, but still a little optimistic, IMHO:
"7:52 --- 157.12 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren (sport auto 06/04)"

bigmclargehuge

Oh, quit being rediculous.You're going to claim that the Z06 is the fastest car ever? By knocking both the Porsche Carrera GT and the SLR McLaren?

That SLR time is an official time, not a munufacturer claim. So is the Carrera GT. So its not unlikely and unscientific. Welcome to reality. I don't care what moron wrote that quote you are using, the Carrera GT ran a 7:32 officially. And the SLR McLaren is a direct competitor to the Carrera GT in price and performance.

The Corvette was never the fastest car out there, it is not the fastest car out there, and it will likely never be the fastest car out there.

There is no way you will be able to eliminate all the cars that are faster than the Corvette on weight alone. Look at the Bugatti Veyron (4200lbs), the Mercedes CLK DTM AMG (3700lbs), Porsche Turbo (3600lbs) I picked the SLR because it is very similar design to the Corvette, only heavier and faster.

The SLR is faster than the Z06 in every single recorded aspect. Acceleration, top speed, braking, cornering. It is a far more advanced car despite its weight and high price.

If they put as advanced an engine, suspension, or aerodynamics into the Z06 it would be going faster than the SLR, but they didn't. That would have driven the price up.

If you want to debate the GT-R's ability to outpace 7:40, thats fine because we have no official time. But no, you can't go back in time and say every official time that outpaces the Z06 is false. That's rediculous.

Don't bother trying to be scientific or realistic, because you are only speculating and guessing. The official times stay official. And since the GT-R also is faster than a Z06 in acceleration, braking, and slalom, your theories about weight aren't really getting you anywhere on a racetrack.

boaz47

Has always been one of our favorite past times. I can remember all of the bench racing that took place in the press and by the letters to the editors when we were about to to get the NSX. Road and track explained all the reasons this would be the super car of the future. When we got it we didn't get everything the bench said we would. ( I would still love one however.) By the time it hit the highway in the US Porsche and Corvette pumped up their game a bit. Then we were told that the Skyline was coming and once again super car was hinted at. We got the G-35. Great car but not all that Super. Bench racers were wrong again. The GT-R may or may not live up to the hype but what looks good on paper doesn't always do as well on the track. We will see what the track shows in just a few months but I don't think Porsche, Corvette, Audi, or BMW are willing to give up just yet.

The second question we might ask is why Renault has decided to allow Nissan to send this car to America just now? we might be glad they did but is it too late? Nissan had a very successful sports car with a twin turbo years ago that was dropped. The 300ZX was one of the most popular sports cars of its time. Now Carlos has decided to bring a car to the US as our economy is in the tank, the dollar is at an all time low and fuel is reaching 4 bucks a gallon? Last time this happened Nissan pulled every sporty model they made from our shores and left us with a Maxima, Sentra, and a slow selling small truck. I wonder if it could happen again?

pmc4

Dude. Not only are you not reading my posts, but you're not reading my links, either.
No where did I ever say the Z06 is "the fastest car, ever." I said it's faster than the GT3 around the Ring. I even suggested it will blow the doors off the GT-R because we all know the GT-R's claim of 7:35 is a misleading pipe-dream promoted by a Nissan drivetrain engineer (it needs to be mentioned that the crack cocaine epidemic is now sweeping Japan).
But nowhere did I say that the Vette is the fastest around the Ring.

I also said that the Mclaren SLR's time of 7:40 is also a pipe dream. This was substantiated by the only (please read the definition of the word "only" in the dictionary before proceeding) only article ever to claim that 7:40 figure.
In other words, the very people that ever claimed a 7:40 time for the Mclaren were the same exact people that said the 7:40 time was "unofficial". Go back to my last post and re-read it, with the links! This is not too hard to comperhend. I do not understand why you are having such a problem with it!

"The SLR is faster than the Z06 in every single recorded aspect. Acceleration, top speed, braking, cornering. It is a far more advanced car despite its weight and high price."

More stuff I don't understand. Now I don't want this to turn into a Z06 versus SLR debate (but isn't it funny that the $77,000 Corvette seems to get compared to $300,000 exotics all the time? Why is that?), but Road and Track says the Z06 gets .99g on the skidpad versus .97 for the Mclaren SLR. Also, the Vette gets "Excellent" (x3) for brake control, brake feel and brake overall. Contrasted, is the SLR, which gets "Excellent" for brake control, "good" for brake feel and "Very Good" for brake overall.
Furthermore, the Corvette gets "mild understeer" for both lateral acceleration and skidpad, versus "moderate understeer" for the SLR in both categories.
Both the Corvette and the Mclaren SLR get 69.6 thru the 700-foot slalom.
So much for the Mclaren SLR beating the Corvette in every performance category...

With all things being nearly identical (with exception to the Corvette's better cornering grip, steering feel, neutral chassis control and better brakes), we should expect the SLR to fall at or near/behind where the Z06 falls on the Nordchliefe.
But it doesn't. In the only article avaliable to us (the Autobild article), the journalist himself admits an unofficial and improbable time of 7:40, not the 7:55 that everyone else is officially getting in this very heavy car.
If you're getting angry reading this, then click on any links I presented, read the words "only" and "official" in the dictionary so you know what these two words mean, then come back and re-read this post. I guarantee you you will not be angry anymore.
Road and Track test the SLR Mclaren
Road and Track test the Corvette Z06

"If you want to debate the GT-R's ability to outpace 7:40, thats fine because we have no official time. But no, you can't go back in time and say every official time that outpaces the Z06 is false. That's rediculous.
Don't bother trying to be scientific or realistic, because you are only speculating and guessing."

I'm not being scientific or realistic; I'm being reasonable.
On second thought, I guess I am being scientific and realistic, as well.

Question is, are you?

.

pmc4

The reason why the bench racers were suggesting superiority with the NSX was due to the fact that the global automotive community was preparing for a new, Japanese threat on the sportscar front and had very high expectations because the Japanese threat was being realised on the mainstream-car front.
In other words, Japan was not only 'wowing' the world with top-end consumer electronics from Sony and Mitsubishi, and building streetbikes such as the Kawasaki Ninja that could go from 0-100 in like two microseconds, but they were selling terrific economy and family cars to the rest of the world, as well.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine just how fantastic Japanese sportscars would be once they were brought to market...

For all this anticipation, people were speculating very positively on the Japanese sportscars (NSX; 300ZX). After all, Honda just released the award-winning Acura legend in 1986...

But times are different now. We know the potential and the limitations of the Japanese auto industry. Japanese products have lost their luster and have been replaced by American X-Box 360's, American Intel microproccessors and American Hewlett Pacard personal computers.
Japanese auto industry (Toyota) is recording more recalls than any other country, save for Germany (Volkswagen). Their hybrid efforts are being smashed by General Motors series-hybrid designs. Their once innovative Honda Motor Company struggles with ancient 5-speed automatic transmissions and crude SOHC V6's that don't even have cam phasing on the exhaust side yet.
Japanese banks have since fallen from grace and their economy is still in a chronic recession.

The fanfare and anticipation towards Japanese sportscars is no longer there; nothing Japan is producing is new or innovative any more.

...This reads almost like something out of the Book of Isaiah, lol...

.

Claires

Now I don't want this to turn into a Z06 versus SLR debate

Great plan :-)

Let's get back to the original question (see the title of this discussion).

bigmclargehuge

You know what, I did look up official, and I came accross an interesting piece of information. The Z06's time is unofficial as well. In fact, all of the referenced laptimes are unofficial.

They are cited, but not official. Magazines don't make official times. Only a licened timing official can do that. And that is typically only at a racing event with telemetry data. A journalist and a stopwatch doesn't count.

That is what Autobild was pointing out. They were just being honest that just because a magazine says it, its not official. They are not saying it didn't happen. Autobild is still saying those times are just as legit as any other magazine cited times.

Anyway, that means that there is no point in guessing which times are real and which ones aren't.

But I'm totally convinced now. It should be true that the lightest car is the fastest, no exceptions. Which must mean the Z06 is pathetic for its weight. Any 500hp 3100lb car should be able to beat the GT3, the GT2, the Turbo, the Carrera GT, the Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, Mercedes Benz SLR, Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, Koenigsegg CCR, Pagani Zonda, Ford GT.

But its not! Until you started this weight argument I actually liked the Z06, but it really just doesn't seem like its meeting its potential. Since performance is all about weight, I've really lost all respect for the Z06 that is slower than cars 200, 600, 1100 lbs heavier.

Maybe you could try not being so condescending when you try to talk about dynamometers (of which you had no prior knowledge) or official times (of which you have no idea) , or V6 vs I-6 engines (which you were flat out wrong about).

You're batting almost 1.000 on being wrong. Why would I get mad about that?

boaz47

I was just saying that bench racers are much better on paper than in real life most of the time. Until I see the finished results at the end of a racing season I am a bit harder to impress. I will admit Renault is allowing Nissan the chance to bring something to us that is almost right out of a video game. This will be one of the most computerized cars they have ever sent us. And with a DSG to boot. No third pedal, traction and skid control and a constant performance readout. Sounds pretty trick.

However the 350Z isn't the ground shaker the 300ZX was any more than the RX-8 will give the same thrills the RX-7 did. Times are changing and this is the second time we were promised the Giant killer Skyline would darken our shores and make us all forget the people that have been with us for years proving their case year after year at all the major race tracks in the world.

Reading reviews on cars from Porsche, BMW. Audi or even Corvette, Viper or Ford GT we didn't hear about what they were going to do till after they showed what they could do.

bigmclargehuge

Just because there is a lot of hype around the GT-R doesn't mean its all hype. It could actually be a world-beater and we still don't know what it can do. I made that point earlier. The biggest bench-racing going on here right now is coming from the skeptics. Using fake 'scientific reasoning' to 'prove' what the GT-R can and cannot do. It is all worthless and we really just need to wait and see.

The reason for all the hype is that when the R32 came out (USA regardless), it was widely considered the most technically advanced car in the world. It laid down the law against the more 'loyal' providers.

So even if Nissan doesn't continuously provide a supercar, the last time they did it made a real impression for those that remember.

And actually I remember when the Ford GT was coming out and it reminded people of the old GT-40. There was just as much speculation and wonder going on about that car prior to its release. As it was with the R8.

Also keep in mind that Ford recently abandoned its supercar fans, and Dodge will soon as well. Nissan is seizing a clear opportunity.

kernick

It is all worthless and we really just need to wait and see.

There is no debate and no doubt in engineers or racers minds that weight is the enemy of performance. And I think most of the cars mentioned here have a weight-problem, and I'd also include the EVO and STi. The goal should be ,000 Lb for a sports-performance car. These overloaded, super-sophisticated machines that will do everything except make your latte, are ridiculous.

lemmer

I agree completely. Maybe this is why people will pay extra to buy light weight BMWs and Porsches that are basically standard models with some of the extraneous crap removed.

I read all this and wonder if any of these cars are as fun to drive as a Miata.

bigmclargehuge

There is no debate and no doubt in engineers or racers minds that weight is the enemy of performance. And I think most of the cars mentioned here have a weight-problem, and I'd also include the EVO and STi.

I am in total agreement that performance cars are getting overbloated. I'd prefer if they all went on a diet as well. However, there is also no denying that some companies have ways to engineer around the problem, and there is no shortage of heavy cars with stunning performance.

Rediculous or not, fact is fact. Sometimes adding a little weight can improve performance without sacrificing comfort. The Porsche Turbo, for example, is a 3500lb sport-luxury GT car with 480bhp. Performance-wise, between it and the GT3, its 6-of-1, 1/2-dozen-of-the-other. But even if they are roughly equivalent in terms of performance, its hard to argue with the fact that the Turbo is easily the better all-rounder.

The Porsche Turbo is a great all-rounder supercar/daily driver, and that is the car that the GT-R was benchmarked against. The debate is, does it succeed? And we don't know yet.

Weight is only one performance consideration. The others are power, aerodynamics and traction. The weight problem can often be solved with power and traction. And in the cases I listed, it has been done.

And the Miata is just not a car I'd consider as a daily driver. Porsche has the better idea with a fast car that can also pamper. Light works on the racetrack, but so does technology. Light and visceral doesn't work in a traffic jam, but technology does.

bumpy

Light and visceral doesn't work in a traffic jam...

Why not?

As an aside, I pretty just skipped over the whole argument over whose numbers are worth what. Unless you bring all the contenders to the same loop on the same day with the same driver with same number of practice laps measured the same way, they can't really be compared within a minute or so.

kernick

The weight problem can often be solved with power and traction. And in the cases I listed, it has been done.

Though a Bentley is much heavier, it does have similar traction, and substantially more power. What holds it back from performance is weight. So weight is a significant factor.

Yes but for how long. A lap, even around the Nurburgring is not a good indicator. That is like a sprinter; I'm asking to consider the car in a marathon. I'd want to know how a vehicle is going to do lap after lap after lap, considering wear on the tires, mpg and thus range, brake-wear, and engine cooling. Just basic physics tells me the lighter cars are going to be easier on these wear items.

And though Mr. Ghosn doesn't have to worry about the costs, as a potential owner I'd want to know those costs per mile, if you did drive it hard once in a while.

bigmclargehuge

As an aside, I pretty just skipped over the whole argument over whose numbers are worth what. Unless you bring all the contenders to the same loop on the same day with the same driver with same number of practice laps measured the same way, they can't really be compared within a minute or so.

I'm in agreement with this too. All times are unofficial. I was only responding to skepticism about heavier cars' ability to make 1 fast lap. Well, those claims are just as legit as one for the lighter cars. My point was there is no point in arguing which Nordschlieffe times are legit and which ones aren't, we have to take them all at the word of the magazine publishing them.

There are some who would prefer a ride that doesn't involve feeling every pebble in the road. The Elise, for example, is called comfortable by very few people. A Miata isn't exactly what I want to be in an accident with. The ride of the GT3 or the Z06 aren't very forgiving when you hit a pothole. Daily driver? Porsche Turbo please.

Though a Bentley is much heavier, it does have similar traction, and substantially more power. What holds it back from performance is weight. So weight is a significant factor.

Thanks Captain Obvious. How the heck is a Bentley a good reference for the GT-R? Of course weight is a significant factor, but so is traction, and the Bentley doesn't have enough. There are some cars that do.

Now a really fast 4200lb car is the AWD Bugatti Veyron. That has the type of traction and downforce necessary to keep 1000hp and 4200lbs from breaking loose. Expensive, but defies physics with engineering.

Yes but for how long. A lap, even around the Nurburgring is not a good indicator. That is like a sprinter; I'm asking to consider the car in a marathon. I'd want to know how a vehicle is going to do lap after lap after lap, considering wear on the tires, mpg and thus range, brake-wear, and engine cooling. Just basic physics tells me the lighter cars are going to be easier on these wear items.

Basic physics actually doesn't tell you that much. Some of the lightest cars have some really bad economy, like rotary Mazdas.

Wasn't it a V12 diesel Audi that recently won Le-Mans? That is certainly heavier than its competion, but with a heavier, more economical and reliable powerplant, it can stay the course lap-after-lap. So really, in multi-lap races, there is something to be said about going with an ultra-heavy diesel.

I agree that multi-lap races are better indicators of... race-winning cars. But when are you going to get totally stock cars racing multiple laps with the same driver, same conditions, etc. etc. Its the same thing as the 1-lap argument. There is no such thing as an unbiased condition.

lemmer

Ugh. Sports cars shouldn't pamper. That's why automakers make sedans. If you want big, heavy, luxurious and fast, buy an M5.

bigmclargehuge

Ugh. Sports cars shouldn't pamper. That's why automakers make sedans. If you want big, heavy, luxurious and fast, buy an M5.

That is an opinion. And you are entitled to it. But what you 'like' doesn't make you right. There is no 'correct' way to build a sports car.

I'm not going to argue that the M5 isn't impressive. But I don't like big, heavy and luxurious. But I don't like spine-rattling fair-weather only cars either. I like the middle ground. I don't know why some people are drawn to extremes, translated:

"It either has to be 5000lbs and soft suspension or 2000lbs and no suspension to speak of."

No, its possible to split the difference. I think its better that way.

I'm not basing my argument on my opinions. It is just a fact that there are heavy-yet-fast cars out there. I don't like them, but they exist.

lemmer

I think you prefer a GT over a sports car.

"Grand tourers differ from typical sports cars in that they are usually larger, heavier (sometimes more than 3,500 lbs), and tend to make less compromise in comfort for the sake of driving ability."

I personally prefer to have one of each at any given time.

bigmclargehuge

Fair enough, I get thrown off by everything being called a 'GT' anymore. Manufactures use it so much it has lost nearly all meaning.

But if the true definition of grand tourer is that it makes less compromise in comfort for the sake of performance, there are still some that do both and do both well.

kernick

The Nissan is certainly, a fine car, and we could all get into semantics about sports car and GT, and the overlap. And you're right about there is no 1 right way to design a car, as the desired result is subjective to the owner.

But upon reflection of my comments, here's what I'm trying to communicate. I think Nissan could have "leap-frogged" the competition instead of this 1-2% better or worse, depending on which numbers you want to believe.
With the hype at least on some of the forums, I expected something extraordinary. What I expect, and where I think Nissan really missed an opportunity on their ultimate performance car is:

A car slightly shorter than the 350Z; lose the backseat. Keep the AC (manual), pw, pl, pm, and ditch the rest of the creature-comforts. Keep the AWD, the brakes and the engine. MSRP of $50K, with volumes in the 50K-100K to spread out and lower the development costs. Now that would be a car to get excited about. A smallish 3,000 Lb AWD car with 450+hp wouldn't have any competitiors.

bigmclargehuge

A smallish 3,000 Lb AWD car with 450+hp wouldn't have any competitiors.

That is hard to disagree with.

lemmer

The Escort GT was one of the leaders on that unfortunate misnomer bandwagon.

To me, a GT is an everyday car that I can squeeze the kids into when needed. A sports car is the car that is fun for me alone on a nice day (maybe even for a track day).

pmc4

"The Porsche Turbo is a great all-rounder supercar/daily driver, and that is the car that the GT-R was benchmarked against. The debate is, does it succeed? And we don't know yet."
I agree with this and it proves that Nissan is not trying to bring the highest-performing inexpensive exotic to market, because if they were, they would have benchmarked the GT-R against the Porsch GT3 RS rather than the Porsche Turbo.
Maybe the F430 or Z06...

pmc4

"Weight is only one performance consideration. The others are power, aerodynamics and traction. The weight problem can often be solved with power and traction. And in the cases I listed, it has been done."

I'll likewise agree with this, and to make the heavier car perform as well as the lighter car, more power has to be added to the engine to compensate for the weight increase (note: COG also must be lowered. If not, all the increased power in the world will not help performance).
Since the GT-R doesn't have this power increase despite a weight increase over the 3,100 lbs cars (3,900 lbs and 480hp versus 3,900 lbs and 600+hp), we can assume Nissan isn't interested in securing a prominent place on the Nurburgring or any other road course.

pmc4

Next to impossible to do without making it illegal or developed by NASA and cost $$$. 3,900 lbs yes but 3,000 lbs no...

bigmclargehuge

1) As far as me knowing about "official laptimes," this very post I'm replying to admits an unfamiliarity on the subject. So, we're left with the laws of physics because Autobild admits there's nothing to know.

There is nothing to know about any of the cars on that 'fastest times' list. The Z06 time is 'only' as 'official' as the SLR time, and even the manufacturer claims. Technically, you can't say the Z06 is faster around the Nordschlieffe, because the time is not official either.

And I already agreed that your physical theories are correct. Its just you are using the Z06 as a benchmark for performance, and it actually sucks for its weight class. It should be putting down 7:20s and 30s. But it is stuck in the 2-ton weight class of 7:40 and above. If the Z06 had a decent rear suspension (which it certainly does not) it would be able to beat the heavier cars. But it can't.

2) We already know that I'm right about the GT-R's dynometer issue, because there's no difference between the results from a Dynojet or a Mustang.

I know what examples you were going to use. You could not be more wrong about that. Your claim is the complete opposite of reality.

3) We also know V6's are better in every respect than I6's. If this weren't so, everyone would be using the cheaper I6 design. The only way an I6 can beat a V6 is if it turns into a horizontally-opposed engine for lower COG.

There is no such thing as a horizontally-opposed I-6.

4) I agree with this and it proves that Nissan is not trying to bring the highest-performing inexpensive exotic to market, because if they were, they would have benchmarked the GT-R against the Porsch GT3 RS rather than the Porsche Turbo.
Maybe the F430 or Z06...

The Porsche turbo is actually faster than the Z06. It is a dead heat with the GT3 and F430. But all are heavier and faster than the Z06.

5)Since the GT-R doesn't have this power increase despite a weight increase over the 3,100 lbs cars (3,900 lbs and 480hp versus 3,900 lbs and 600+hp), we can assume Nissan isn't interested in securing a prominent place on the Nurburgring or any other road course.

Doesn't need the power. It has the traction. Same with the Porsche Turbo. The Porsche is faster than the Z06, but has 480hp, and weighs 3500lbs. Why is it faster? Better traction.

Still batting 1.000 I see.

bumpy

We also know V6's are better in every respect than I6's.

"We" know no such thing. Free education:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-6#Balance_and_smoothness
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth3.htm#Inline-6

bigmclargehuge

Dynojet 248C is actually an accelerometer whereby it uses a 3000-3200 pound drum that is used to create an inertia load on the vehicle being tested. The vehicle's horsepower (HP) and torque try to overcome the weight/inertia of the drum to accelerate it. As a result the software and electronics try to measure the horsepower and torque that the vehicle is developing to overcome the drum's weight and inertia. The resulting horsepower and torque will be higher than a true loading dyno because once the drum starts rolling not as much power is needed to keep it going. Example -- When pushing a car on a flat road, once the car starts moving not as much power (effort) is needed to keep it going. The software does not ask for vehicle weight or anything like horsepower needed to maintain 50 MPH (a number that is actually put out by E.P.A. and N.H.T.S.A.).

The Mustang dyno is a true loading dyno, because it uses an inertia weight as well as an eddy current motor that is attached to the rollers. This eddy current motor creates a drag on the shaft by way of electricity that causes a magnetic field to try and overcome the torque going through the roller shafts. This current is controlled by software that is always trying to simulate load as if the car is driving in real world conditions. The real benefit from the loading dyno is the ability to maintain a load that allows a tuner to properly go through a fuel map or ignition map and tune the chip for optimum horsepower and torque. It has the ability to also simulate the IM240 emissions test as required in some states. It can check 1/4 mile times as well as times for 0-60 MPH and 0-100 MPH. It can also be used for road testing and simulation for drivability problems. As a result of the loading cap ability, the dyno numbers from a mustang dyno will come out lower than the inertia (dynojet) dyno. Further information can be seen at www.mustangdyne.com

http://smt.pca.org/LNSTech0506/DynoTime/index.html

stever

Check out lmpracetech's 2009 Nissan GT-R album.

bigmclargehuge

Does that center console display have SatNav?

They should have incorporated the radio into the display.

I can just see someone with 3 LCDs in the center. "Well I needed GPS, and my aftermarket radio needed a pop-out flashy screen."

stever

Does that center console display have SatNav?

Dunno, better befriend him and ask him. :shades:

boaz47

until we see what can be done when the car gets here. With all the press we have been getting on Skylines over the years and the dirt their supporters have been tossing at the other countries sports cars we have yet to see a Skyline blow everyone off the track at Le Mans. I wouldn't expect them to send a LMP1 or LMP2 modified car but why not a GT Class car? All the big guns are there and there would be a chance to stick your finger in their eye? Even Aston Martin was there and after two years managed a win. Against a what some have called an easily out classed Vette?

I will freely admit I have no clue how good the new Renault/Nissan might be but Renault has built race cars before. It is just that we always seem to get news of the new street king of racing coming over from Japan only to see it fall short of expectations year after year.

Here is what we have been told over the last few years. Foreign press says the Skyline is coming to the US. We read in the car mags impressive prototype reports. We see examples at the Auto shows. We are tempted with hype from movies like the Fast and Furious and we get? We get the G-35, not fast and not furious. We were told at least two years in advance that Nissan was going to build a full sized truck that on Paper was going to take the US by storm. It would make us all forget about not only the F series Fords but the Toyota Tundra as well. On paper the Titan looked much better than it turned out to be as it failed to make projected sales the very first year.

Nissan has made some reasonable vehicles. But they haven't proven to be the best bet in delivering a brand new car first shot out of the barrel. If this is coming over as a street racer,( as if we need another street racer?) then it will have to be easily modified. That is hard to do with such a complicated car. But the true test will be seen on the track and unlike Nissan who has a Porsche in the back ground as a test mule to build against I don't see Audi,BMW, Corvette, Porsche or Ferrari with any Nissans sitting in the background as examples of what a sports coupe or GT should be. Nissan will not get respect by sending out fliers they will have to earn it. I will try and control my enthusiasm for a Renault inspired Nissan designed super car till I see it leap tall buildings at my favorite race track running side by side with cars that have been attempting to leap those same building for years.

I believe it wold be very foolish to get a totally new car manufactured but a company run by the person the industry calls "Le Cost Killer".

bigmclargehuge

All very good analogies, but what about the bang/buck kings? The WRX/STI and Evo?

Their story is much like the GT-R story. Years Japan and Europe had these cars at their disposal, until we got them finally almost 10 years later in 2002. They were tried and true rally-bred street racecars. There really isn't anything that comes close for the coin you put into them. Even if they are ugly as sin this year.

So lets not stereotype Japan as the nation that always disappoints. The GT-R was a huge flaming success in Europe in the 90's and early 00's. Stomping all over 911 turf. We finally get an updated version that we already know is based on a capable platform.

They can test it in Japan, they can test it in Europe, they can test it in the US. But as far as a definitive race car goes, you are absolutely correct, that it is wiser to wait and see.

we have yet to see a Skyline blow everyone off the track at Le Mans. I wouldn't expect them to send a LMP1 or LMP2 modified car but why not a GT Class car?

The GT-R GT500 is already tearing up the Super-GT series. But that series is in the only region of its current release (Asia). I have little doubt there will be some either factory-backed or privateer versions used in American and European series racing, whenever they make it over here.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/17/supergt-nissan-gt-r-takes-first-and-second-in- -round-1-at-suzuka/

boaz47

"All very good analogies, but what about the bang/buck kings? The WRX/STI and Evo?"

You see those cars make my point. A few years ago I was a bit of a NOPI fan and even took a short subscription to sports compact car. I hear all the news about the coming of the mighty WRX and the Lancer EVO. Two thing happened that surprised me, yes as you say they were ugly but bang for he buck? On the street someone decided to make a Neon SRT and even sell a after market chip that turned the little econo box into a weekend money machine. People were bringing their WRXs believing the press and leaving the 1/8 import tracks with lighter wallets. Weight is the enemy even in AWD when you are on the street or in the only place you can get away with racing them in the daylight, the airport drag strips.

But as I happened to mention this to a few I was told that they were much better racers in Europe as WRC cars and then I would see their true worth. So even though I thought WRC was like watching the grass grow I started following WRC. For the last three years the WRX Subaru has not been able to finish better than third in the manufacturers race by the end of the year. Yes Peugeot and Citroen were eating their lunch as was a little known car to me at the time something called a Ford Focus RS. Last year the Focus took the manufacturers championship with almost twice the points by year end as the WRX. The Lancer wasn't even in the running. I have stopped watching because it doesn't look like things will ever get better for Subaru in WRC. Maybe in some regional events but not the big leagues.

I know you realize for a street car the aftermarket makes or breaks your credibility. The way things are you can get speed parts for a Ford, Porsche, Chevy, or BMW almost at your local 7/11. You can get Honda speed parts out of your breakfast cereal boxes. I know you can buy a cold air intake system for a Civic at Autozone. If Renault/Nissan wants to make their mark here it will be on the track against cars that are ready for them. It isn't often that a first year car is all that successful. Even the mighty GT40 took a while before it could hand Ferrari his hat for three or four years running before they decided not to play anymore.

I will be looking forward to watching. I may have changed my interests to Rock Crawling and desert racing with some late Model Irwindale thrown in but I still follow ALMS and Import Sedan races so I should see some examples of this new super car that will run over Porsche and Vette alike before the end of the year? If not, you will buy the Beer? I am pretty close to Willow Spring, Buttonwillow, or Laguna Seca.

bumpy

Uh huh, and the valet will come back out and ask which Neon is yours. :P

bigmclargehuge

Slapping an AWD system on a Sentra is no way to win my money. I have had the unpleasantness of owning a Nissan before. I had a 2005 Maxima that lived well below its expectations (oil leaks, stalling, warping rotors, rattles) so I don't have high expectations for anything else they have to offer. The Japanese are trying to buy there way into respected performance car territory. I didn't buy into the NSX (Accord), Supra (Tercel), or the 300ZX (Sentra) . I'm not buying into something that the valet is going to park at the back of the lot with the Hyundai's. I'll keep my 05 Twin Turbo Viper (0 - 60 in 3.2 sec) and dust off all of the wannabe's ricers in the Nissan.

Another good 'ole boy making stuff up. The NSX had nothing in common with the Accord, nor does the GT-R have anything in common with the Sentra. Interisting how your quality benchmark is Dodge. Yechk.

Funny how it takes a twin-turbo Viper to match the 0-60 time of a 480hp GT-R. Edmunds got a 3.3 second 0-60 time on their second try in the car. I don't think the 'wannabe ricers' are really going to be scared of a tractionless wonder like a Viper TT. Especially not on any road with curves in it.

But as I happened to mention this to a few I was told that they were much better racers in Europe as WRC cars and then I would see their true worth. So even though I thought WRC was like watching the grass grow I started following WRC. For the last three years the WRX Subaru has not been able to finish better than third in the manufacturers race by the end of the year. Yes Peugeot and Citroen were eating their lunch as was a little known car to me at the time something called a Ford Focus RS. Last year the Focus took the manufacturers championship with almost twice the points by year end as the WRX. The Lancer wasn't even in the running. I have stopped watching because it doesn't look like things will ever get better for Subaru in WRC. Maybe in some regional events but not the big leagues.

I can't help but compare your WRC cliffnotes to the Nurburgring comparisons. Rallying is very nearly all driver ability. Peugeot, Citroen and Ford dump millions into the competition, and have stolen a couple of drivers from Subaru WRC. So no, it probably won't get better anytime soon, but it has slightly less to do with the cars. Thats like saying Chevy is better than Toyota because they have more Nascar victories. Not totally relavent.

I know you realize for a street car the aftermarket makes or breaks your credibility. The way things are you can get speed parts for a Ford, Porsche, Chevy, or BMW almost at your local 7/11. You can get Honda speed parts out of your breakfast cereal boxes. I know you can buy a cold air intake system for a Civic at Autozone. If Renault/Nissan wants to make their mark here it will be on the track against cars that are ready for them. It isn't often that a first year car is all that successful. Even the mighty GT40 took a while before it could hand Ferrari his hat for three or four years running before they decided not to play anymore.

If you want a good drag racer, I'm not going to argue that the SRT-4 Neon was tough stuff. But add twisties to the mix, and its all EVO. With STI as a close second.

Also keep in mind, that when they released the WRX in 2002 it was only allowed 225hp. In Japan it got 280hp. So yeah, they shafted us... until 2004, when it got 300. But the aftermarket on these cars is actually the easiest I've ever done. I see no point in buying a turbo'd Suby unless you plan on upping it to 350-400hp. Some friends are over 500hp. They still aren't great drag racers though. They don't have rear-bias AWD like the GT-R. Symmetrical AWD is stuttery on launches. But the aftermarket for these cars improves their track-ability at least as much as Ford, Honda or BMW.

You might want to watch the Koni Challenge if you are so close to those tracks. The Subaru Legacy Spec-B has only entered 6 of 12 races last year and scored 2 victories. I don't know how many races they will enter this season.

Can't predict end-of-the-year. I'm not even sure what month they are planning on releasing the GT-R. If it does fail to win a race its first season, I'll have to send you the beer via FedEx.

bigmclargehuge

And speaking of disappointments, I think that the entire full-sized truck segment sucks. Yes, that includes the Titan, but that's because its a copy of the Ford F-150. Unederneath the body, they have the same dimensions to the inch. Even the crossmembers are in the exact same places. The engine is more or less Nissan's take on the Triton, which is a gas hog.

However, my VQ-series 4.0L V6 Frontier has a higher towing capacity than a Hemi-powered Ram, a 4.6L V-8 F-150, and a 4.8L V8 Silverado. Plus it gets 19/21 mpg and has a 6-speed manual. How is it that Nissan built a better V6 mid-size pickup than Ford and Dodge can build a light-duty V8 full-sized pickup? I used to have a 5.4L Triton Ford and got 12mpg on average. Useless vehicles.

They should give up on the Titan. They don't need it. It was a mistake for Nissan and Toyota to ever try to get into this rediculous market for the Urban Cowboys. The Tacoma and the Frontier are easily the best in the mid-size pickup market. Ranger, Dakota, and Colorado need not apply.

So lets not get too deep into the Japanese/American argument. Any nation can build a performer if they put the time and effort into it.

sensai

The Porsche turbo is actually faster than the Z06. It is a dead heat with the GT3 and F430. But all are heavier and faster than the Z06.

Since nobody corrected this, where did you get this information? One of the mags (car and driver I think) did a comparison of all three of those, and the Z06 was faster both straight line and on the track. Now, they picked the other two ahead of the Z06 for other reasons, but performance wise the Z06 clearly stomped the turbo 911 and the F430 in that comparison.

bigmclargehuge

You mean this Road and Track comparison? Where the F430 ran the fastest lap on the track and the 911 Turbo out-accelerated the Z06?

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=3776

Maybe that's why nobody corrected it. And I was specifically referring to Motor Trend's claims that the 997 Turbo can 0-100km in 3.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 11.4 seconds. I have yet to see a magazine get the Z06 faster than 3.7 and 11.7.

Oddly enough, those numbers are very similar to what Edmunds got with the GT-R.

sensai

Hmm, haven't seen that one but I'm looking at the "track map" link and it appears the Z06 beats the 911 in every speed category. Yes in a quarter mile race all of them will be competitive. But the Z06s trap speed is always higher, and the 0 to 150mph runs show just how much more powerful it really is. Also note a person broke into the 10s on a verified bone stock Z06 (yes including the run-flat tires).

The one I saw was definitely from Car and Driver. Not sure of the linking rules on here, so just google search on Z06 vs 911 vs 430 and there are a bunch of links with scans to that article. And yes the Z06 beats them both in that one. One interesting thing is the Z06 and 911 had much lower performance numbers in the Road and Track article while the F430 had much higher numbers compared to the Car and Driver article.