EVO magazine: Z06 faster than GTR

[JJ26]

Originally Posted by E. Haskell

He also posted times from what is essentially an autocross track. Anytime the Exige is finishing ahead of the GT3 and Z06 and within .5 of the Gallardo - you know it's a tight track.

I'm wondering why none of these mags are doing a test between the cars. EVO had both cars right there on the same day and on the same track with the same drivers.

Could it be on purpose?
Do they know the Z06 would win thus killing the GTR hype machine?
Is Nissan's input involved?

Z06 test was done with the white car while the test with the GT3 was done with the black one. The white car is the same one used in the Car and Autocar tests as well.

I don't know the reason why they used different cars other than these are privately owned cars so maybe they didn't have the time to use just one car? I don't know. The tracks are within 20 miles or less of each other. Although the R8 test in Wales is much farther.


And here is the Road and Track Comparison of the GT-R v. Z06 v. 911 Turbo

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6594

I don't know if it should be a new thread or not.

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by redTT

GTR owners would have some very nasty surprise when they finally take the GTR out on the track, expecting it to be battling enzos. After several laps they also better have some spare pants because handling will become interesting in the GTR. My guess is that the GTR is a one (if not 3) lap wonder.

Bad guess. Tsukuba, 5 laps:



First column is GT-R times, second column is Gallardo Superleggera (530hp/AWD/DSG/3000lb/DOT-R tires).

Overall GT-R finished 0.85 sec behind 200,000$ italian supercar and about 12 sec ahead of 911 GT3. Dunno about Enzos or GT2, but GT-R certainly can battle Gallardo SL. And so far we know that Z06/911 turbo/GT3 are no match to it.

GT-R V-Spec is another matter though. 550hp (whp?), -150kg, DOT-R tires and probably active rear diff.
Enzo? What Enzo?

[Joevette]

is the gt-r's hp rated at the wheels or the flywheel?

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by Joevette

is the gt-r's hp rated at the wheels or the flywheel?

By comparing 0-120mph times to Z06, analyzing dyno runs of both and applying basic laws of mechanics I have come to conclusion that GT-R has ~ 490whp or 580 crank hp.

Yes, I know that edmunds claims that GT-R is right on spot with 480 crank hp, but I tend to believe my math.

0-120mph is long enough to disregard effects of AWD, launch control or any other electric wizardry that Nissan put into GT-R.

[AG3]

Originally Posted by 61BelAir

I guess I heard wrong. I thought I read somewhere the GT-R was $86k

List Price:$69,850
Price as tested(R&T):est$72,880
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...6911_chart.pdf

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by slowRSX

I'm not saying the Z06 is not balanced.

redTT: We will not know how fast is the GTR without the launch control. Did somone do a test with the launch control off? Don't know.

Edmunds gets teh GT-R from 0 to 60 in 3.4 seconds. With ATTESA turned off it's 4 seconds. A huge improvment, as you can see, and suggests the car's performance is largely derived from its e-nanny system.

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by Almag

Okay thanks. So you concede that he didn't say the Z06 had an unfair advantage.

Here's some interesting data. Evo magazine's laptimes of the circuit they ran as part of the GT-R / Z06 / R8 / 911 GT3 story:

Bedford West Circuit Lap Times

1. Porsche Carrera GT 1.19.7
2. McLaren F1 1:21.2
3. Ferrari Enzo 1.21.3
4. Nissan GT-R 1:21.7
5. Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera 1:21.8
6. Audi R8 1:22.1
7. Koenigsegg CCX 1:22.3
8. Lotus Exige-S 1:22.4
9. Porsche 997 GT3 1:22.6
10. Ferrari 599 GTB 1:23.1
11. Porsche 997 Turbo 1:23.6
12. Porsche 996 GT3 RS 1:24.2
13. Ferrari F430 1:24.2
14. Corvette ZO6 1:24.5
15. BMW E92 M3 1:26.6

This list was already covered in the other forum and has been determined to be bogus.
An 800 horsepower, 1.30g, 2,600 pound Koenigsegg coming in later than a clumsy ol' Audi R8?
The only reliable results would be some Ring times, and Car and Driver's Lightning lap, where the Z06 broke all records...

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

Almag, There is not a single test where Z06's brakes failed or faded. You seem to hate the Z06. Why do you not join a nismo forum? There you can wollow in GT-R's greatness.
If you want to sit there and steer the car as it does its thing, enter into a GT-R, if you want to drive and enjoy a car, drive a Z06

Do NOT discourage import trolls from posting here! I'm having way too much fun with them here!

[JBsZ06]

This is not me but I thought you performance junkies might get a kick out of this 46 grand C6 base coupe running at englishtown today

Showroom Stock LS3 runs 11.7!!!! New Record!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats right, you boys heard it. The showroom stock C6 record has been broken. (by two people)

Englishtown, NJ, cold day, corvette challenge. Where was I? I was in the test and tune lane with no pressure added to my launches.

So here are the times, the attached slips, a link to the video, and excuses lol

Stock Tune:

1. 11.844 @ 119.64 mph - 1.871 60' - Little bogging, hot run (just got there)
2. 11.829 @ 121.23 mph - 1.914 60' - Bog, Coolant at 170* in staging lanes, also I think the mph is wrong, doubt I trapped that high.
3. 11.718 @ 119.94 mph - 1.839 60' - Good launch, more in it, Coolant at 130*

After that run I thought it probably can't get much better so I loaded my tune to hopefully compare to the stock tune on the same day.

My Tune:

4. 11.892 @ 120.19 mph - 1.971 60' - Clutch stuck to ground, pulled up with foot and got back on it. Notice the higher trap even after lifting. Coolant was at 130*
5. 11.836 @ 120.10 mph - 1930 60' - Clutch half way to ground, left off, got back on it. Maybe I need a stronger clutch. Once again, notice the trap is higher even after lifting. Coolant was at 120*

I think the car had an 11.5 in her today with my tune. I estimate this because comparing the delivered torque sensor it says peak hp is 585 on the stock tune, and 612 on my custom tune. The difference is 4.4%. So take 4.4% times 390 rwhp (guessing) and that equals 17rwhp. I imagine that is enough, combined with the even greater mid range gain to slam this car into an 11.5 on that day, in those air conditions, at that track.

For those interested, the stock tune was loaded the night before, driven that night, then on the two hours to the track.

Hopefully this attachment will work...

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/v/iSsR-B1p_Os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsR-B1p_Os

(Not sure which link works...)

Sorry for the rediculous sized images... I'm car 703. They wouldn't give me my usual number of A002... boo.

http://pilampsu.com/racing/100_1003.JPG
http://pilampsu.com/racing/100_1004.JPG
http://pilampsu.com/racing/100_1005.JPG - 11.718 Run
http://pilampsu.com/racing/100_1006.JPG
http://pilampsu.com/racing/100_1007.JPG - Duplicate
http://pilampsu.com/racing/100_1008.JPG



My 08 Vette is the M6, base package, no options (no Z51, NPP, etc)

P.S. Another board member here, Rich I believe, ran a 12.0 with his LS3 A6 with 29 PSI in the tires and banging off the limiter in 4th... definately slowing him down.

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

This list was already covered in the other forum and has been determined to be bogus.

This list was in fact compiled by EVO, trustworthy magazine not affiliated with France or Saddam Hussein (or any other organisation that has a negative view of America and its industries). Wait, who said that? You are!

Obviously, when EVO says something good about Z06 - you thinking that it's accurate and fair, but when the same magazine drives GT-R around the track considerably faster than Z06 ... suddenly EVO became biased and bogus.
You are pathetic troll PMC.

[Triple-X08]

what good is a 0-60 time. we arent measuring a 16 second 1/4 mile time.

its as pointless as someone analyzing a 0-37 mph time. 0-100 is more viable as this is where both of these vehicles are going to be running.

[Almag]

Originally Posted by void.crusader

By comparing 0-120mph times to Z06, analyzing dyno runs of both and applying basic laws of mechanics I have come to conclusion that GT-R has ~ 490whp or 580 crank hp.

Yes, I know that edmunds claims that GT-R is right on spot with 480 crank hp, but I tend to believe my math.

0-120mph is long enough to disregard effects of AWD, launch control or any other electric wizardry that Nissan put into GT-R.

Any time-to-speed performance (even 0-120) will be improved by a better launch.

To get a better idea of power vs weight vs drag, look at trap speeds. Trap speeds aren't affected by how well you launch.

This is where the lighter, more powerful Z06 shows its advantage over the GT-R.

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by void.crusader

This list was in fact compiled by EVO, trustworthy magazine not affiliated with France or Saddam Hussein (or any other organisation that has a negative view of America and its industries). Wait, who said that? You are!

Obviously, when EVO says something good about Z06 - you thinking that it's accurate and fair, but when the same magazine drives GT-R around the track considerably faster than Z06 ... suddenly EVO became biased and bogus.
You are pathetic troll PMC.

Once again you're accusing me of saying something I didn't. Where did I say anything about the GT-R and EVO?

EVO's test results on this track are bogus because of an unaturally low finish for the CCX. How can you argue otherwise? Unless their driver just doesn't know how to get the 1.30g's out of the CCX, in which case, the test result is still biased, since EVO is allowing the driver of some of the cars drive them correctly and other cars driven incorrectly like the CCX.

In either case, the test is bogus because of the inconsistencies between some of their tested cars and the tested cars' known potentials.

As far as the GT-R is concerned, EVO gave the car 41/2 stars, which is nearly perfect. Their only complaint is modest clumsiness when cornering over uneven pavement, and a motonous exhaust. THey loved everything else about the car.
EVO gave the same ranking to the Z06, and said the same basic thing about the Z06, except the Z06 is harder to drive yet has a better sounding engine than others in its class.

Now how exactly am I trolling? If anything, EVO is trolling for not giving the CCX the credit it's due, and giving way too much credit to the Audi.

[void.crusader]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

EVO's test results on this track are bogus because of an unaturally low finish for the CCX. How can you argue otherwise? Unless their driver just doesn't know how to get the 1.30g's out of the CCX

According to Koenigsegg, the CCX has registered 1.3g around the skidpad, an astounding claim we'd like to verify.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=4182

1.30g number you refering to in each post is manufacturer's claim for CCX. It's not verified on standard skidpad by any magazine.

Here is the facts:

- full-blown race car Viper Comp Coupe on Hoosier slicks can record 1.15g on 200-ft skidpad
- all street legal sports cars on street legal tires have ~ 1.0g on 200-ft skidpad,
examples - stock Viper, Nissan GT-R, Audi R8, Ferrari Enzo, all with 1.01g.

Now sweden guys claim that their street legal CCX managed 1.30g? That's simply BS.
They either pull this number out of their butts or record it on non-standard skidpad or on the track at high speeds. On track GT-R can hit 2.0g, so what?

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by void.crusader

According to Koenigsegg, the CCX has registered 1.3g around the skidpad, an astounding claim we'd like to verify.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=4182

1.30g number you refering to in each post is manufacturer's claim for CCX. It's not verified on standard skidpad by any magazine.

Here is the facts:

- full-blown race car Viper Comp Coupe on Hoosier slicks can record 1.15g on 200-ft skidpad
- all street legal sports cars on street legal tires have ~ 1.0g on 200-ft skidpad,
examples - stock Viper, Nissan GT-R, Audi R8, Ferrari Enzo, all with 1.01g.

Now sweden guys claim that their street legal CCX managed 1.30g? That's simply BS.
They either pull this number out of their butts or record it on non-standard skidpad or on the track at high speeds. On track GT-R can hit 2.0g, so what?

I know the 1.30g figure sounds inflated, but judging by the cars metrics and applying judicious amounts of the laws of physics to the matter, the car does weigh like the same as a Vette C^-R, and even has a bit more power. So, we can expect -- other things notwithstanding -- that the CCX most certainly out-corners the street-intended sportscars in the EVO test.

Admit it. EVO shows tremendous bias by having clumsier or more inept cars come in ahead of the CCX, which immediately invalidates the EVO test result.