Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

13

Comments

  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    "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."

    Was this a misprint? When I was looking for a tow vehicle I didn't get those numbers. The Nismo Frontier best rated towing was in 2WD at 6500 # with 1429# load capacity. The lowest rated Ram I could find was 8300# in 4WD. 2WD most often has a higher tow rating but I need 4WD. My Tahoe can pull more than 6500# rated for the Frontier. Unless you are correct and your Frontier can out tow a Ram Hemi. If I would have known the Frontier was such a good tow vehicle I might have given it a second look.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Was this a misprint? When I was looking for a tow vehicle I didn't get those numbers. The Nismo Frontier best rated towing was in 2WD at 6500 # with 1429# load capacity. The lowest rated Ram I could find was 8300# in 4WD. 2WD most often has a higher tow rating but I need 4WD. My Tahoe can pull more than 6500# rated for the Frontier. Unless you are correct and your Frontier can out tow a Ram Hemi. If I would have known the Frontier was such a good tow vehicle I might have given it a second look.

    You are correct, it was a misprint. Dodge gets the pass.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Let's call it a draw. Pretty much have to chalk it all up to driver ability. Different days, different tracks, different drivers, different results.

    But I was responding to an earlier post that the 997T is not competition to the Z06, because it is weaker and heavier. Well we know that's not totally accurate. It is weaker. It is heavier. But it is a toss-up which one will perform better on which track. Where could I be going with this?

    So to get back to the point of the thread... if the 997T is weaker and heavier than the Z06, yet comparable in performance, can the GT-R be comparable in performance to the 997T and hence be as good a bang/buck car as the Z06?

    Definitely maybe. I just want to take the wind out of anyone's sails that picks any one car to bolster above all others without good cause. Even if we do get definitive results from a magazine it will probably end up being this type of argument for years:

    GT-R is best ever? Not really... About the same.
    Z06 is best ever? Not really... About the same.
    997T is best ever? Not really... About the same.
    GT3 is best ever? Not really... About the same.
    Viper is best ever? Not really... About the same.

    Depending on the driver, these are all as near as it makes no difference the same performance level.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Ultimately, it won't matter.

    The Z06 and the GT-R will offer pretty much the same perfomance when driven by Joe Blow. The technogeeks will want the GT-R. The V8 fans and Corvettes guys won't ever accept a Japanese V6 as a substitute. Porsche people will be willing to pay an extra $50K for similar performance to the other two cars.

    Pretty much the only thing up for grabs is the bragging rights as the car magazines' top performance choice.

    Personally, if I had to spend $70K for a new sports/GT car, I would buy a plain jane 911 with as few options as possible.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Pretty much the only thing up for grabs is the bragging rights as the car magazines' top performance choice.

    As if on que... this was photocopied from a British magazine that, try as I might, I can't find an online link.

    http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031

    A few good quotes;

    "That the GT-R is on equal terms with the Z06 is a massive achievement"

    "To save you from having to check our lap-time table... the GT-R slots in just beneath the Ferrari Enzo..."

    "Cars that genuinely set new standards are rare, but the GT-R has drawn a new line in the sand."


    For those that are keeping score:

    1) Edmunds tested this car's numbers against the 911 Turbo, the Z06, and the Viper. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    2) Autocar raced this car on a track against the M3 and the GT3. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    3) Evo.co.uk has now tested acceleration against the Z06, handling against the R8, and track time against the GT3. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    I'm not saying there's a pattern here... Just thing to consider as we move forward. Lets keep track of all the competitions in magazines that Nissan wins vs. doesn't win. Any more examples?

    And we can forget about 'physics class' and what we think we know about technology and weight and power vs. speed. This car is an automotive Einstein. It is re-writing all the old equations.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Nice article and all. I expect the GT-R to have great accleration at the lower speeds with the AWD traction advantage and it does keeping pace with the Z06.

    But by the time they've both hit 100mph it looks like the Z06 is accelerating harder than the GT-R. What would be the difference as the cars went to 120mph? 140? 160? I believe this is where you would see the Vette winning any race, because Newtonian physical principles of weight and power still apply. Or if they didn't then maybe Nissan could have just made the GT-R 4,500Lb and 300hp and it would still be "king"?

    Yes you can find tests and tracks where 1 car is better or equal than another, as the cars are close under most driving conditions. If I wanted to drive fast or race though, I would want the lightest weight and most power. When someone takes these cars to Indy and runs them for 24 hours, then we'd know what's best in this class. What you're reading about in the magazines right now are sprints and 1 lap short races; where's the endurance factors being evaluated?

    While the GT-R is getting lapped because of a lower top-speed, and going thru tires because of its weight (more pit stops), I'd put my money on a "low-tech" Vette or Viper before I went with a smaller displacement turbo.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Oh, but that's just the point. If the lap has any corners in it, this car is not getting lapped. Not by a GT3, not by a Viper, not by a Vette. Lower top speed regardless. 193mph vs 199mph? Irrelevant. Unless this is an oval track or a 2-mile straight, they will never reach the top speed. What matters is speed through the corners. And this car has it in spades.

    No, they did 3 laps, best lap wins. And the GT-R has the best 'best lap'. So technically it is the 'fastest' of the bunch. Even if it exploded into a fireball in a 24-hour race, it is still the fastest. There is no 'best'.

    Its back to my earlier criticism of endurance races as tests of what makes a fast car. They're not.

    If you want to win an endurance race, get an Audi R8 diesel when it comes to the US. Fewer stops for fuel = win. Thats how they won LeMans. No shredded tires because of the heavier car. 24-hour races are won and lost on logistics, yes. That would not 'prove' anything.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Things it has working for it:

    Lightning fast shifts. Nissan's DCG is as good as Ferrari's DSG.
    AWD that makes Audi's Quattro system seem twitchy.

    This combinatorial effect has a huge track advantage. There is little chance that the same driver in a Z06, Viper or GT3 can brake, turn, shift as fast as in the GT-R. And with acceleration between the curves almost as good as the others, plus the super-shifting, there's nowhere for the RWD cars to make up time.

    There is nothing out there to suggest that the GT-R isn't as good as if not better than its competitors on a track. Nothing but stubborness anyway.

    And has anyone paid attention to the fact that there is likely to be a lighter, more powerful V-spec version of this car?

    How much so? Oh, you know... the same type of power and weight improvements we saw with the Z06 over the Z51.

    70hp and 100lbs is all the difference the Z06 has over the Z51, though it made a tremendous track difference. And the GT-R has a lot more belly fat to lose.

    So if the V-spec is to the GT-R what the Z06 is to the Z51... GAME OVER.

    There will be no lapping the V-Spec.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    "There will be no lapping the V-Spec. "

    The Titanic was "unsinkable". On Paper.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Yeah, but the GT-R is the iceberg.

    That's why its getting such a poor reception. I remember reading lots of "this behemoth will never be able to beat a __________". However many cars have filled in that blank so far, it already has.

    Whoever likes American muscle, or German sport, or think that 'light means right', is terrified of this Japanese upstart.

    I'm just commenting on the available evidence. Everyone who's written about this car after having driven it thinks it is of a new generation of GT cars. Anyone can be stubborn and refuse to believe it.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Member Posts: 399
    as a matter of fact volvo (in addition to what you are saying) did not want to use a v6 because it wouldn't allow enough of a crumple zone betwee n the front of the car and the engine for (in part at least ) pedestrian saftey. And Bumpy, volvo just introduced a new inline 6 in the latest s80 (and I believe v70) in the last yeaar (with a 6 speed auto as well) this is the engine BR was talking about, it is quite compact from my understanding. It also makes more power more efficiently in turbo guise than the v8 volvo as well (but it isn't available in the s80 in this guise in North america at least)
    Scott
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Time to chalk another one up for Nissan

    1) Edmunds tested this car's 0-60, 1/4-mile, slalom and skidpad against the 911 Turbo, the Z06, and the Viper. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    2) Autocar raced this car on a track against the M3 and the GT3. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    3) Evo.co.uk has now tested acceleration against the Z06, handling against the R8, and track time against the GT3. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    4) Road and Track tested 0-60, 1/4-mile, slalom, skidpad, and track time against the Porsche Turbo and the Z06. Result: resounding win for Nissan.

    One thing of note, this was the US-Spec version. So any skeptics wondering if we're getting the real deal? We are.

    "Simply put, the GT-R is the most potent automobile to ever come from Japan, and will surely have manufacturers in America and Europe rethinking their ways. If it weren't for the car's $69,850 asking price (an estimated $72,880 for our test car) — and the fact it wears a Nissan badge — the GT-R might well be considered the most exotic car on the planet."

    I'm willing to believe 2 things:

    1) The Z06 is capable of 0-60 in the high 2's and 1/4-mile in the high 10's, with a higher trap speed than the GT-R. So in a straight line, the Vette is still king.

    2) The GT-R powers through corners like nothing else in its class. Its likely that the Nissan test drivers were not exaggerating or lying. The GT-R is, and always was, capable of a 7:35 Nurburgring time.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    The R&T article has made me a believer in the GT-R. They didn't really leave any room for discussion about which car was best on that track.

    Porsche should just give up on AWD cars considering they've never created an AWD car that people liked as well as their RWD counterparts.

    That all being said, the GT-R did get whipped in trap speed. It seems to be fading fast once you get much over a 100 mph. I would like to see what would happen on a higher speed track.

    Also, for the lovers of the luxury/sports compromise, if you add up R&T's handling and ride scores, the Z06 is the winner.

    For those who prefer driving excitement above all else (ok, this is me), the Z06 wins.

    For track performance above all else, the GT-R is the winner...but I haven't heard anyone claim this is their primary requirement.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I disagree with Porsche dropping the Turbo.. I've long said it had untapped potential, and the GT-R proves that. A few tweaks and the 911 Turbo should be right back in the running.

    I've actually gone so far to theorize that Porsche has intentionally restricted the Turbo, so that they don't offend the purist base. I have no evidence to that effect though, so its just a theory.

    I don't deny that each of these cars was just as remarkable when it came out. The Z06 broke new ground for affordable performance. The 997T is actually quite good value next to its Ferrari competition. But its a few years later now, and Nissan wants to play.

    So for this precise moment in time, that Nissan is my favorite of this bunch, but the ZR-1, C7 Z06, or 998 Porsches might be just as impressive.

    I have no loyalty, I want them to battle it out so that we all get the best they can manufacture.

    Kings are born first from conquest, second by inheritance.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    There is a small firestorm going on in the R&T forums with some heavy allegations of sandbagging on the part of Millen. Based on all of the objective performance data, the other lap times sure seem a little slow in comparison to the GT-R. It doesn't help that he has links to the article on his website and states his company has big plans for this car. It seems like a substantial conflict of interest.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    You'd think R&T would have thought that through ahead of time. But allegations don't prove or disprove either side. I've seen plenty of loyalist excuses so far, and this potential conflict of interest just gives them ammunition.

    However, there is still no evidence to suggest that the GT-R would not be faster than these 2 cars on a track, from any source.

    The degree to which it is faster will have something to do with driver ability and familiarity with the vehicles. Professionals with the GT-R (and Millen is no exception) have come close to Enzo times on tracks already. So were the previous drivers in the Enzo 'sandbagging' so that a year later the GT-R might catch up? Not likely.

    Even if all 3 were exactly the same speed, the fact that the GT-R can even accomplish that despite being significantly heavier already proves that the other 2 have untapped potential. They technically should be performing better than they are.

    Its not the driver's fault if the 911T and Z06 can't catch an Enzo. That's Porsche and Chevy's fault, and it might just be physically impossible to do. If a driver in a GT-R can catch an Enzo.... well done Nissan.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Do you think ANY of these cars, showroom stock, could possibly sustain speeds over 175 mph for any length of time without hand-grenading? These speeds seem somewhat irrelevant to the real world.

    The reason I see a bright future for the GT-R, and the reason I see it as ground-breaking, is that the platform seems to have a great deal of room for development, whereas cars like the Viper and Vette need to be re-invented for the future IMO.
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    I noticed the Nissan didn't dare go up against an 08 Viper ACR. With no cupholders you'd think the Viper wouldn't stand a chance but who knows. :D

    Some of these magazine tests should be required to put a disclaimer at the start of the article on how much ad revenue each of the manufacturers in the test contributed.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Give it time. The Viper ACR might be more in the same category as the lightened, strengthened GT-R Spec.-V. But it might be a while before we see those 2 go head-to-head in a test.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Do you think ANY of these cars, showroom stock, could possibly sustain speeds over 175 mph for any length of time without hand-grenading?

    Similarly I said a few weeks ago, that it would be interesting to run these cars at a track like Indy, Daytona, or Talladega for 24 hours. See how many miles they can run. In that case you would be including mpg, gearing, cooling design, tire wear, and whether your design to achieve high power is really reliable. I would think in a test like this displacement would matter (less stressed, more cooling area), with a car like the Vette or Viper running the most miles. I know Saab used to tout this type of test (24 hour high-speed run) about 10 years ago in their advertising.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I would think in a test like this displacement would matter (less stressed, more cooling area), with a car like the Vette or Viper running the most miles.

    Basically, what you're suggesting is drive them both until they handgrenade? And even then, which one goes first might vary based on certain conditions. So what we really have to do is buy 10 of each and then average which one blew up after how long. But who has a spare million to prove this moot point?

    I think the point that was being made is that NEITHER is durable enough to take that kind of punishment.

    Similarly to before, this really isn't the practical kind of test that can determine a real winner between these cars in stock form.

    Also, its not as simple as displacement. Endurance-race prepped Corvettes and 911s match up quite well. The extra cooling of the larger block is partially counteracted by the extra friction that having extra pistons invariably causes. Displacement is not really the measure I would use to predict a winner.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Race engines actually are more "fragile" than a stock engine, as they usually run higher compressions and rpm. I would fully expect a large normally aspirated engine to run for 24+ hours at an rpm a few hundred under red-line, especially with a synthetic oil.
    Mazda did it here with a very small displacement engine:
    http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2004-Mazda-RX-8-Record-Run.htm

    If you do some searches you'll probably find other manufacturers do this with their cars, with various changes.

    Or maybe more impressive: http://www.saabhistory.com/2007/01/25/the-last-saab-9000-503087/
    "The ‘Long Run‘ endurance test on the Saab 9000 at the Alabama International Speedway in Talladega, Alabama, U.S.A. in October 1986 played a major role in strengthening the sporty image of the car. Over a period of 20 days, Saab staged an incredible record run with three standard production Saab 9000 Turbo cars. This resulted in 21 new international records and two world records - the foremost of which was a distance of 100 000 km at an average speed of 213.299 km."

    I would be quite upset if I paid $70K+ for a high performance car, and if it was only good to run for 20 min. or so at a time! I would expect these cars to be able to run 150mph+ for their full warranty period. Otherwise since you're bound by the laws on the road, you might as well get an Accord V-6.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I don't know why everyone uses the Accord V6 for a benchmark on average performance. There are roads in NJ where you can't even do the speed limit in an Accord V6 without it understeering into oblivion. There are plenty of cars that have handling that is useful even in on-road settings at the legal limit. An Audi or BMW certainly can be fun without getting a wreckless.

    Race engines actually are more "fragile" than a stock engine, as they usually run higher compressions and rpm.

    Uhh... they also have higher specific power outputs with those considerations. They are hand-built that way. If you added the extra power to a stock engine, the race engine would outlast it every time. After every 24-hour race, you overhaul the entire drivetrain regardless.

    I would fully expect a large normally aspirated engine to run for 24+ hours at an rpm a few hundred under red-line, especially with a synthetic oil.

    They do these as bench-tests to determine reliability. There really is no point to doing it on a track with a fully manufactured car, because you will be removing that engine for an overhaul afterwards.

    I would expect these cars to be able to run 150mph+ for their full warranty period.

    Why? There is only one type of situation in which that could ever occur:
    (from your article)
    24 hours of non-stop maximum speed around the 7.6mile-long banked circuit at Papenburg test facility, near Hamburg in the north of Germany.

    So you want the GT-R and Z06 to win a NASCAR endurance competition. A banked oval? 7.6miles? That is probably one of the biggest ovals in the world. The drivers likely never had to downshift except to pit. What does this prove? Even NASCAR drivers have to downshift more than that because their long tracks are only what, 2 miles around?

    If you are working towards moving the 'supercar' benchmark towards fuel efficiency, #of laps or distance travelled over 24-hours, the RX-8, Z06, 911, GT-R would all lose to an MB 320 CDI.

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=105638#

    This isn't exactly the test for supercars. If this type of test is what impresses you most, why bother comparing cars that were designed for cornering and acceleration?
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    They do these as bench-tests to determine reliability. There really is no point to doing it on a track with a fully manufactured car, because you will be removing that engine for an overhaul afterwards.

    The point that manufacturers have historically made by taking their vehicles and running them for 24+ hr at high speed (relative to their capabilities) is to prove that the design of the engine, drivetrain, and associated systems are of a high quality. If an engine is built for 400hp, can it maintain operation near that or is that simply a peak, and you better drop the power after 30 min, or as you say it will "grenade".

    And while you can't think of a reason to do it in an actual vehicle instead of a bench-top, I'm sure the engineers would like to see if the air entering the car at 150+mph is adequate for cooling, do the oil and trans. fluids overheat, ...

    If you have a 500W stereo in your car and you want to play it at maximum volume you should expect it to function fine year after year, not catch fire after 30 min! ;)

    My expectations are that large displacement engines as in the Vette, Viper, AMG's, Lambos, ... will run just fine long-term at 150+mph. They are not pulling that many rpm's. As displacement goes down and turbos and superchargers are added to a vehicle, I become more suspisicious of whether they can maintain their peak power levels. I think it was fitting for Saab and Mazda to prove their cars could run near peak power hr after hr. That is a good indicator of a quality design.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    The point that manufacturers have historically made by taking their vehicles and running them for 24+ hr at high speed (relative to their capabilities) is to prove that the design of the engine, drivetrain, and associated systems are of a high quality.

    You realize what sized engine the Mazda has right? It's a 1.3 liter. Yes, reliability is great. They should test and prove it for all vehicles. But it is not proportional to cylinder displacement at any speed. The cars you have selected have absolutely no inherent advantage based on the number of cylinders.

    At this point it very much sounds like a tail-wagging-the-dog argument. You want to find some reason to judge smaller, turbocharged engines as inferior, but you are guessing as to how that would occur.

    But your idea of a long-term reliability test isn't bad for any company to try, as long as its is not for the purpose of racing.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    But your idea of a long-term reliability test isn't bad for any company to try, as long as its is not for the purpose of racing.

    I think we agree on that. As far as engine size goes, I'm not saying small and forced induction engines can't endure if designed properly. I think they have a higher burden of proof though, as they are stressed more, typically running higher rpm, and turbos that are heating the oil that much more.

    If you want to put it in terms of athletics, I think there is a lot to be said for judging a vehicle as a decathlete, and not just judge who's best in a sprint or in the hurdles.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I was thinking more in terms of the glory days of piston-powered aircraft. In WWII, every fighter engine had a turbo/supercharger installed to run at max rpms indefinitely. The high-speed, high-altitude interceptors and heavy-laden bombers all had twin-stage turbo/superchargers. Whether it was radial or V-12, air or liquid cooled, reliability more came down to who was manufacturing it.

    And with these cars, I think any problems would result from not enough troubleshooting. Basically any engine configuration can be tailored to a certain type of race with enough quality control.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    From noted automotive historian Karl Ludvigsen about the rotary:

    "its rotary engine had a displacement of 573cc per working chamber. Since there were two rotors and three cells per rotor, that added up to a total capacity of 3,438cc."

    He maintains that rotary engine displacement has always been understated - very interesting. Maybe that is why they guzzle gas like a much larger engine.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    The system used for measuring rotary displacement means that the Mazda "1.3" liter rotary is the functional equivalent of a 2.6L piston engine.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I've heard that before also, but the Ludvigsen quote was new to me. He wrote an entire article about it in Hemmings Sports and Exotics.
  • 07997turbo07997turbo Member Posts: 31
    Have ya looked at the specs and reviews on the 2008 Porsche GT2?....

    In any event, I would rather roll at 200 MPH in a Porsche hardened roll cage than in a 2000 LB Japanese train wreck.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Really? Because 2000lbs sounds pretty good to me. Are you talking the AE86?

    And you are basing 'train-wreck on'? Probably nothing. Do whatever you want to do, but your criticisms are lacking in value.

    And yes, I've seen the specs. They were impressive for a whole 5 minutes until the V-Spec started its testing. I'm sure we'll see a repeat of the GT-R/Turbo competition with the GT2/V-Spec competition. With the 3500LB V-Spec getting the performance edge in almost every category.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    And the GT2 will cost how much??? I haven't seen anything specific but somewhere around 190,000-200,000 dollars is what I heard.

    I doubt you could pay over 100,000 for a GTR even if you tried to.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Agreed, but I don't even like diving into the cost aspect, since someone will jump in with the 'feeling' of the Porsche being worth the extra 6-figures... ok fine, we can't measure that.

    But Porsche designs its cars to be fast around a track, no question about that. Price is a Marketing issue. Brand image is a Marketing issue. Comfort and feel are personal preference and nothing more.

    But every single Porsche being no superior technically to a Nissan? That's an engineering issue. And that's the only issue I think is valid here.

    The title "Dethrone the 911 and Z06" is a resounding YES, if used in terms of performance. We know that Nissan will only make 1500 GT-R's for the US. So obviously they aren't trying to bankrupt Porsche or Chevy. They only want the bragging rights of the fastest car. And they succeeded. End.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I wouldn't be surprised if people pay over $100K for the first few. People paid way over MSRP for the new Thunderbird just a few of years ago, so I am pretty sure they will for anything perceived as new and hot.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Ford GT went for 50% over MSRP as well. Thats what happens when you have tens of thousands of people wanting... hundreds of cars at that price. Frankly, Chevy gets to keep the trophy for availability of supercars. I'm sure they'll make as many ZR1s as are ordered from Kentucky. Same with the Z06.

    People are willing to pay even more for things deemed 'exclusive', 'classy', etc.

    Its probably worth it to whomever wants to own one of many automotive legends. Everyone who's driven it so far claims its a very different experience. Maybe just a break from the trivial and mundane is what people are willing to pay for. There's only one way to take it for testdrive. Fork out the cash and hope it fits with my driving style.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Link to the Sickness

    Link to the craziness

    Nurburgring lap time for GT-R: 7:29

    Note: It does not specify V-spec. What it appears they are saying is that in dry conditions, the base GT-R on stock tires is 9 seconds faster than on wet pavement. Surprised? You shouldn't be. This truly is the start of the next generation of GT cars.

    The ZR1 will have a tough enough time just catching the base GT-R. And the Z06 is no longer in the same category. Owned. It is also faster than the GT2 on race tires, and demolishes the Turbo. Owned.

    One can only guess how fast the V-spec will be. 7.10s? 7.00s? Nothing in the works for any company is prepared to compete with the V-spec.
  • skarieskarie Member Posts: 78
    WOW!

    After reading that, why on earth would anywon want to purchase a GT2.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    After reading that, why on earth would anywon want to purchase a GT2.

    To get the 'feel of a real sports car'. Whatever that means. J/K :)

    If I were looking to burn that much cash, I'd be waiting to see what the V-spec can churn out.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Maybe because of this.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    In the animal kingdom, many hybrid species are sterile.

    With a sports car, less is more. So why pay 100-200K for one that isn't as fast as a GT-car, nor as light and visceral as an open-air car? They are stuck in the middle where they aren't really notable for anything.

    I'll buy the GT-R and spend the rest on a KTM X-bow. Superb enjoyment all around. That is a case of 2 being better than one, IMHO.

    c'mon! lighten up. Porsche will respond. :P
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    For me personally, the prime responsiblity of sports cars is to be fun and exciting to drive on both road and track. The GT-R doesn't sound like much fun. A plain Corvette seems more exciting to drive and a plain Miata seems like more fun. Of course I am just guessing this based on driving Miatas and Vettes and merely reading about the GT-R. Maybe if they came out with a RWD, non-turbo, manual shift, better looking GT-R for half the price I'd be interested. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like a 350Z.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I did like my Corvette, but I can have tons of fun in an AWD turbocharged DCG vehicle too.

    Actually I can have fun in just about any car. I handbrake-turn and double-foot automatic FWD cars just to get them to take offramps a little quicker. Any car can be fun, and all cars are fun at some point. Except the Prius. :P

    The subjective 'fun' is more about whats going on inside the subject (you) than the object (car). There is always something just a little more fun out there. Don't get me wrong, I like light, fast and visceral. But if I go manual shifting, NA, RWD, why not go all the way? The Miata is not 'all the way', IMHO.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    How about a Lotus Elise. Cars don't get much more fun and exciting.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I wouldn't turn down an Elise. Thats a true embodiment of 'minimalist design' and is another type of engineering success.

    But to maintain the topic somewhat, I can have fun whilst being impressed by the object (car) instead of the subject (me). And vice-versa as well. They just don't always have to be the same experience.

    I think every time I gunned the GT-R's engine and shifted quickly, and then tossed it into a typically unmanageable curve, I would say "wow, what an impressive machine I have acquired." Adrenaline would run, eyes would widen, pulse would quicken. I think that is synonymous with 'fun'.

    I think it would be like picking up a Barret BMG .50-cal. Sure a bolt-action 30.06 is more of a 'real' experience. But the BMG has so much recoil dampening and muzzle braking that it would kick no more than the 30.06. It doesnt make me a better shooter. But the technology of the gun allows me to fire a 12.7x99 round which I would otherwise be unable to do. And that gives me goosebumps.

    I think my only solution would be to own both a GT-R and an Elise etc.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    about how fast the new ZR1 is lapping the 'Ring? The engineers are claiming beating the GT-R is a foregone conclusion.

    In any case, the Corvette looks and sounds to be about 10 times more fun. I like the GT-R but even the proposed upgraded version will be so much heavier, less attractive, and lower powered than the ZR-1.

    If the GT-R is "sick" as the kids say, then the new ZR-1 is twisted, puking sick (and this coming from a Porsche fan).
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    My prediction is that smack talk is only going to get the ZR1 engineers in trouble.

    Keep in mind that the ZR1 production has started, and now they are trying to see how fast it goes after the fact. The V-spec is testing and getting itself fine-tuned for track performance before production.

    Even if it slightly out-edges the GT-R, the Corvette to end all Corvettes really doesn't stand a chance against the V-spec. Reasoning?

    The GT-R had 480hp and 3800lbs to lug around. But its such a finely tuned AWD machine that it could blow away a 3100lb 505hp Corvette on a track.

    Power was not the issue with the Corvette, traction was. Lets look at the performance improvement of the Z06 over the Z51. By gaining 70hp and losing 100lbs, it went from a 7:59 to a 7:43. 16 seconds.

    The ZR1 then adds 120hp and gains 250lbs of curb weight. Sure the tires are wider, but in the end it got a lot more of what it already had plenty of.

    The V-spec on the other hand will now have (at least) 70hp more and 300lbs fewer to push around. That's a bigger power/weight upgrade than the Z06 has over the Z51. That 16 seconds starts to sound conservative.

    So while they are popping the champagne tops at GM, Nissan will just announce that the V-spec. set the record for world's fastest production car ever built. That'll take the wind out of anyone's sails.

    The GT-R in its heavy, weak form posted a 7:29. We really should start a sweepstakes as to how much faster the V-spec. will be. 7:15? 7:10? 7:05? I can tell you what I think that car is capable of, and what I think they'll be shooting for. 6:59.

    Why? Because it uses the exact same formula as the Alzen 996 GT2 Turbo 4WD. The fastest Group A Porsche ever to lap the Nordschlieffe. It was under 7 minutes.

    Plus, Nissan has a landmark heritage to live up to. They were the only production car in the world at the time to break the 8 minute mark. Wouldn't this be fitting?

    Nobody expected Godzilla to beat the 911 Turbo, the GT3, GT2, or the Z06. And it did. So I think the V-spec has every bit as much potential to cause widespread sickness.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    However if you want bang/buck + fun, I think the next-gen Z51 (or whatever they choose to call the base C7 Corvette) will be equivalent to the C6 Z06.

    Because the C6 Z51 is about as good as the C5 Z06. At $50K, that's value that's hard to argue with.

    If I were desperate for a fun bang/buck supercar this instant, I'd probably get a C6 Z51 and just install the supercharger myself.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    If the V-spec loses 300lbs and gains 70 hp, it will have a power to weight ratio close to the current Z06 for only what, a $50K premium?

    As for the 'Ring, the unofficial darling of the moment is the Lexus LF-A at 7:24 just beating the V-Spec at 7:25. Of course, all times at the 'Ring are unofficial, measured in different ways and run in different conditions. Also you don't think that maybe GM puts a little hotter tire on the ZR-1 for a run? Maybe Nissan jacks up the boost a little? I take it all with a grain of salt. These times are meaningless to everyone but a few car geeks.

    Beyond all the track talk, about the hardest thing to fake is instrumented 1/4 mile trap speeds of production models. The GT-R is still running third behind the 911 and Vette in just about everyone's results. I can't imagine the V-spec catching the ZR-1.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Power/weight ratio is fast becoming less meaningful for road-courses. Especially when you throw AWD into the mix. Forget the 'Ring times for a second, and look at how that translates to other road courses. GT-R has the Z06 and 911 Turbo by several seconds; whenever, wherever.

    Even with a comparatively pathetic power/weight ratio, just look at how the R33 lines up against the C6 Z51. Similar track times, 100 less hp. Same weight. AWD.

    I doubt they will modify the car heavily for a 'hot lap' and not put it into production that way. They don't want to be embarrased in all the other journalist tests. Their reputation is on the line, and it has to be repeatable.

    For example, Porsche wouldn't dare lie about using cut tires for their 7:32 GT2 run. They tend to always be modest and conservative with their numbers. They obviously don't want to get BS called on them.

    Though I don't take those bystander times seriously. For all we know they might have quoted the V-spec doing a 7:25 and that was the lap that the GT-R did 7:29.

    ZR1 will likely be 1/4-mile King. No argument here.
This discussion has been closed.