Edmunds tests the US spec GTR

[91fairladyZ]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*

[slowRSX]

Looks good. Although a little slower than the JDM version, but still potent.

ibpmcfthisthread.

[plane]

Isn't that the same g-force that the Cobalt SS pulls on the track?

And I may be a bit biased but I certainly don't remember this much gaga over the Viper on it's introduction.

Anyway, I would love to grind the gears on that puppy. Down to the very nubs.

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by plane

Isn't that the same g-force that the Cobalt SS pulls on the track?

GT-R: 0.96
Cobalt SS: 0.89

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=138538
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...8/pageNumber=3

And I may be a bit biased but I certainly don't remember this much gaga over the Viper on it's introduction.

7:59 as best effort is sad.

[plane]

QUOTE=void.crusader;1393984]GT-R: 0.96
Cobalt SS: 0.89
[/quote]

That's <censored> pretty close, torsion beam rear suspension and all.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

7:59 as best effort is sad.

I don't want to be dismissive of the GT-R in the way that you seem to be towards the Viper.

A 7:59 track time is the same as Nissan Skyline, a C6 Z51, and a Porsche 997.
Using your rationale, the 7:38 GT-R should be considered blindingly slow,
especially when compared to laps dating back to the 70's.
I mean if it's only about the time then the GT-R doesn't even merit a footnote in Ring history.

http://www.nuerburgring.de/Records.365.0.html

The truth is, track times at the ring are impressive, but are not the be and end all.
In this case, the 1/4 mile comparison is far more favorable to the Viper.
Does that make the GT-R any less of an achievement?

And if the Viper track time you threw out is true, for its age and what the Viper was, looking back 10 years, that's not a bad track time at all.

[mbukukanyau]

you wait until we start hearing of the tires wearing out on one side or some other issues.

But, I have to give it to Nissan. Their dog can run.. but like all else, they will soon be history.
I am sure everyone from porsche to ferrari to lambo to GM, to toyota are studying this car, its software and its awd system, or trying to build their own version. In two years, It will have to shed alot of weight to keep up.
But for now, its king..

I am wondering, What would happen if you revved a Saab Turbo X to about 5000 RPM and let go, would it not also run like this dog? even if not that stupid fast, It might be able to break the 4.0 to 60

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by plane

That's <censored> pretty close, torsion beam rear suspension and all.

Their last 911 turbo tested at 0.92g, being $120K german supercar and all.
Btw Cobalt SS is friggin good car for the money.

I don't want to be dismissive of the GT-R in the way that you seem to be towards the Viper.
A 7:59 track time is the same as Nissan Skyline, a C6 Z51, and a Porsche 997.

But you asked why Viper don't get R35 GT-R press, not R33 GT-R or 997 Carrera S, right?

Using your rationale, the 7:38 GT-R should be considered blindingly slow, especially when compared to laps dating back to the 70's.
I mean if it's only about the time then the GT-R doesn't even merit a footnote in Ring history.

It's only about the time for production street-legal cars, not sport prototypes like this:

The truth is, track times at the ring are impressive, but are not the be and end all.
In this case, the 1/4 mile comparison is far more favorable to the Viper.
Does that make the GT-R any less of an achievement?

You asking what's easier - to build 7:30 car or to build 125 trap car? The latter of course.

Btw GT-R time is 11.7 vs 11.8 for 600hp Viper and 12.0 for Z06. Not so shabby for big fat Nissan. Far more favorable to the Viper? We'll count that as wishful thinking.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...0/pageNumber=6

And if the Viper track time you threw out is true, for its age and what the Viper was, looking back 10 years, that's not a bad track time at all.

Dunno, but it's listed as 2005 result. I have a feeling 2005 was 3 years ago, not 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordsch...test_lap_times

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

But, I have to give it to Nissan. Their dog can run.. but like all else, they will soon be history.
I am sure everyone from porsche to ferrari to lambo to GM, to toyota are studying this car, its software and its awd system, or trying to build their own version. In two years, It will have to shed alot of weight to keep up.
But for now, its king..

I heard it cost Nissan 1 billion $ to produce GT-R. Not sure that GM or Ferrari or Lambo or Porsche have a cash laying around. Toyota ... may be, if their budget for LF-A can swallow it.

V-Spec will be here in 2009, a stripper like GT2 - no a/c etc, but weights ~3600.

[plane]

Originally Posted by void.crusader

It's only about the time for production street-legal cars, not sport prototypes like this:

That was exactly my point. Everything comes with a context.
The Viper is old technology. That's why I specifically mentioned "10 years"
The fact that the GT-R has a better Ring time takes nothing away from the Viper in it's time.
And it's actually worse than 10 years.
Where was the GT-R in 1992?
Context.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

You asking what's easier - to build 7:30 car or to build 125 trap car? The latter of course.

Btw GT-R time is 11.7 vs 11.8 for 600hp Viper and 12.0 for Z06. Not so shabby for big fat Nissan. Far more favorable to the Viper? We'll count that as wishful thinking.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...0/pageNumber=6

If we want to talk about pure trap times, no holds barred......

http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge--Viper-Drag-Racing.html

Again, I take nothing away from the GT-R, carbon fiber goodness and all.
But, the straight shot - Are you serious? Have you ever raced?
When you start saying 11.7 vs. 11.8 in the same breath as "wishful thinking", you lose your audience quickly.
Same track? Same day? Side by side race?
Like I said more favorable for the Viper.
Not pwnage, just more favorable than 7:59 vs 7:38

Here's just one 11.7
http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-qu...mile-times.htm

Originally Posted by void.crusader

I heard it cost Nissan 1 billion $ to produce GT-R. Not sure that GM or Ferrari or Lambo or Porsche have a cash laying around. Toyota ... may be, if their budget for LF-A can swallow it.

V-Spec will be here in 2009, a stripper like GT2 - no a/c etc, but weights ~3600.

GM doesn't need to spend $1B to develop anything new.
GM already has the Z06 and soon the ZR1.

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by plane

The fact that the GT-R has a better Ring time takes nothing away from the Viper in it's time.

Do you still living in it's time or you are in 2008?

Where was the GT-R in 1992?

Where was Ferrari Enzo or McLaren F1 in 1920? They suck and Ford Model T FTW.

If we want to talk about pure trap times, no holds barred......
http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge--Viper-Drag-Racing.html

Why should we bother with times from different sources? These 7-9s Vipers are obviously not stock. What's your point then?

We have legit times from edmunds, with 600hp stock Viper and production USDM stock GT-R. And Viper doesn't have any advantage. What a drama and reality check for some folks.

Another reality check will be at the actual strip, where GT-R can be launched ten times in a row and get results within 0.1s. Good luck doing that with stick.

[tholland]

It's a bit of a cold fish, but for $76K, we'll deal.

Funny, the grill kinda' reminds me of a carp. The design doesn't excite me, although I'm sure driving one would.

[91fairladyZ]

Instead of hating this car we need to enjoy this latest round of sports cars that are coming out, because cafe will soon put a damp towel on them. I look forward to what the ZR1, LF-A, and NSX have to say in response to the GTR and GTR Victory Specification.

[plane]

Originally Posted by void.crusader

Do you still living in it's time or you are in 2008?

Where was Ferrari Enzo or McLaren F1 in 1920? They suck and Ford Model T FTW.

Because I appreciate history, the steps that brought us to this point.

For you to compare the current GT-R to a design that was put forth over a decade ago, based on a comment that I made about historical press reviews was a bit off the mark to begin with.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

Why should we bother with times from different sources? These 7-9s Vipers are obviously not stock. What's your point then?

We have legit times from edmunds, with 600hp stock Viper and production USDM stock GT-R. And Viper doesn't have any advantage. What a drama and reality check for some folks.

No one ever claimed the Viper had any advantage.
Just that in at least one measure, it compared more favorably to the GT-R than your ring time comparison.
We have time slips that show that the much older, far less exotic Viper will run with the GT-R. Stock.


We also have time slips that show very clearly stock only begins to determine the performance characteristics for a vehicle. So while we may bandy about ring times for a strictly stock mass-produced vehicle, that is in and of itself a very limited perspective and is far exceeded in many ways.
By F1 super cars as well as lowly Vipers with NOx.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

Another reality check will be at the actual strip, where GT-R can be launched ten times in a row and get results within 0.1s. Good luck doing that with stick.

Again, kudos to the GT-R.
This is another great aspect of technology moving forward.
What an amazing powertrain, dsg goodness and awd for excellent power laydown.
When you start looking at slicks on a production vehicle to be able to lay down power, AWD makes much more sense.

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by plane

For you to compare the current GT-R to a design that was put forth over a decade ago, based on a comment that I made about historical press reviews was a bit off the mark to begin with.

Agreed. But youtube wasn't here 10 years ago. Hell, even this forum wasn't up 10 years ago. Press scene is much wider now.

No one ever claimed the Viper had any advantage.
Just that in at least one measure, it compared more favorably to the GT-R than your ring time comparison.
We have time slips that show that the much older, far less exotic Viper will run with the GT-R. Stock.

Ok, so Viper is closer to GT-R on dragstip than track.

However I fail to see how Viper is "old".
4 gen was out in 2008.
600hp aluminum block with VVT tuned by McLaren and Ricardo (original casting by Lamborghini)
Lightweight chassis
Double-wishbones all around
Fat Michelin PS2 tires
Costs 90K
Far less exotic? Hardly.

We also have time slips that show very clearly stock only begins to determine the performance characteristics for a vehicle. So while we may bandy about ring times for a strictly stock mass-produced vehicle, that is in and of itself a very limited perspective and is far exceeded in many ways.
By F1 super cars as well as lowly Vipers with NOx.

That's true. Amuse GT-R already running 600 whp with 3700 lb weight. R33 and R34 GT-R proved to be fast dragsters in the past.

When you start looking at slicks on a production vehicle to be able to lay down power, AWD makes much more sense.

GT-R doesn't even use half-slicks. And I never heard of full slicks on production cars.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by 91fairladyZ

Instead of hating this car we need to enjoy this latest round of sports cars that are coming out, because cafe will soon put a damp towel on them. I look forward to what the ZR1, LF-A, and NSX have to say in response to the GTR and GTR Victory Specification.

We all need to enjoy this car because it forces ALL manufacturers to continue to bring their A game. In the same way that these same people used to (still does) hate on the Camry and Accord I welcomed the improved competition because now we have the Chevy Malibu. CAFE is not going to kill every fun car out there because these cars sell in such small quanities that they will not even put a slight dent in the CAFE numbers and will put a huge profit in the car makers pocket.

[JJ26]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

I am wondering, What would happen if you revved a Saab Turbo X to about 5000 RPM and let go, would it not also run like this dog? even if not that stupid fast, It might be able to break the 4.0 to 60

Unlikely. The Turbo X is quick, but not that quick. For example stock STis and Evos which are lighter and of similar power won't hit 4.0

Best time I've seen from a mag review is 4.5 to 60 IIRC for either the STi or Evo.