Car & Driver: Chevy Corvette Z06 vs. Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR, Nissan GT-R, Porsche 911

[bone]

The GT-R is not a vehicle I would ever consider simply because it si so ugly and not a true sports car. The Z-06 would be my hands down choice amongst the four, however, I would pick a lightly optioned Z-51 over the Z-06.

[BurnOut]

A few things that strike me:

1- ALL of the cars in this test (with the possible exception of the Viper; even then, the non-ACR version certainly fits the bill) are essentially GTs

2- the first shot of the GT-R going around a curve illustrates one of the drawbacks to AWD and high curb weight... the thing was understeering like a pig

3- Porsche has a better car in the Cayman than they do in the 911, but they insist on pimping the 911 with the motor in the worst possible location due to tradition (IMO). Put the GT2 motor in a Cayman and it'll dust the 911, guaranteed.

4- as someone else mentioned, I also suspect that some of Nissan's press cars have been ringers or, at least, "factory freaks" that may or may not have been cherry picked; nonetheless, I still think that they are pretty impressive cars... for a nearly 4000 pound car to be compared to cars like the 911, Viper ACR, and Z06 is pretty impressive, IMO

5- I want to see a tire-independent test of these cars. Equip them all with the same make/model of tires (in their respective factory sizes), and run 'em again. There's no reason to compare them only on their factory rubber because let's face it... tires are a wear item and are often replaced with other-than-factory bits. Make 'em all run on Victoracers, Goodyear runflats, or mini-spares, I don't care... but since tires play SUCH a key role in the way the car behaves at the limit, I think that it'd make a lot of sense to level the playing field here.

6- the 'Vette is the only one of the cars in this test that is produced in any significant numbers (if I had to guess, I'd say that even the Z06 version of the 'Vette (i.e., not the base model) is produced in greater numbers than the base model of the Viper), so it wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were more compromises made to the 'Vette in the name of easier/less costly production (as compared to the other cars)

7- the styling of the GT-R is subjective, but I personally kind of like it. It's ugly, but in a functional way... and I dig that

8- I would actually agree with the gotta have it of the GT-R, at least for now... there has been lots of press/web traffic on it, and not too many (if any) on the street; who WOULDN'T stop to check one out in a parking lot or something? However, I think that "gotta have it" should be a separate tally and not factor in to the overall score of the car... in fact, I would be inclined to rank the cars on objective means (0-60, braking distance, double lane change, etc...), then separately on subjective means (fit and finish, gotta have it, most likely to get you laid, etc...).

9- Regardless of what you think about the GT-R in particular you have to admit (well, you SHOULD admit, anyhow) that it's pretty friggin' cool that we here in the US FINALLY get some of the gee-whiz stuff that has up until now been available only in foreign markets

10- as several others have mentioned, I like that there is some competition for the 'Vette... as they say, competition improves the breed. Think about it... if Porsches, Ferraris, etc... were still putting up the kind of numbers that they did in the 80s, would we have something like the Z06 (much less the ZR1) available? I'm betting that the answer isn't just "no", but closer to H3LL NO.

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by big swede

Well honestly they should have. It has no turbo's, plumbing, intercooler, AWD, huge brakes/wheels and half the horsepower (at the time).

The point being is Car and Driver's historical assertion that the best cars are those cars that had the engineers "add lightness" to them. The GT-R did not have "lightness" added to it.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

The point being is Car and Driver's historical assertion that the best cars are those cars that had the engineers "add lightness" to them. The GT-R did not have "lightness" added to it.

I'm quite sure the engineers had a major focus on lightness for the GT-R or it would weigh a lot more than an average sedan even though it has all the items I mentioned.

[JerryL]

C&D is just trying to sell magazines.....they have very little credibility with actual "car people" based on their previously mentioned history. They know if they put a 'Vette on the cover it will sell magazines.
Watch for their upcoming "GTO Smokes GT-R comparison", or their "New NSX Smokes Everybody Super comparison". Anything for a story.

[xicer]

this is why I read c&d for entertainment, not car news and reviews. I tend to ignore or skim their comparos, what I really read for are articles like the 24 hours of Lemons and the One Lap of America coverage.

[Capn37]

Only one person has mentioned the biggest problem with the article, probably because no one has an actual copy of the magazine but the Title on the cover of the magazine is "America vs The World" "The Ultimate TRACK TEST." Yet somehow what was clearly the best track (the ACR) car ends up in 3rd and the GTR is handed a victory for showing up.

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by big swede

I'm quite sure the engineers had a major focus on lightness for the GT-R or it would weigh a lot more than an average sedan even though it has all the items I mentioned.

Dude. You know these brainless replies usually result in sharp critisizm on my end, right? So, why such little thought in this reply?
Facts:
GT-R:
AWD. Little V6, twin-turbo.
Smaller, lighter brakes.
Smaller, lighter tires and rims.
Weight: ALMOST 3,900 POUUNDS!
Lambo Gallardo Superleggra:
AWD. Huge V10 engine.
Huge brakes to handle the power of the V10.
Huge rims and tires to handle the 200MPH top speed.
Huge, huge, huge.
Weight: ONLY 3,000 POUNDS!
As we can see, the Lambo engineers, like the Corvette engineers, added "lightness" to their cars.

Do not reply with a brain-dead answer like, "But... But... The Lamborghini costs like $200,000." Thank you.

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by Capn37

Only one person has mentioned the biggest problem with the article, probably because no one has an actual copy of the magazine but the Title on the cover of the magazine is "America vs The World" "The Ultimate TRACK TEST." Yet somehow what was clearly the best track (the ACR) car ends up in 3rd and the GTR is handed a victory for showing up.

Check this out. Car and Driver always does this. They do it on purpose. Why, you say? To get people like us complaining about how worthless the magazine is, that's why. If they didn't have people like us saying bad things about their magazine, they wouldn't have people like us saying anything at all about their magazine.
Ca-ching!

[eurohazard]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

Dude. You know these brainless replies usually result in sharp critisizm on my end, right? So, why such little thought in this reply?
Facts:
GT-R:
AWD. Little V6, twin-turbo.
Smaller, lighter brakes.
Smaller, lighter tires and rims.
Weight: ALMOST 3,900 POUUNDS!
Lambo Gallardo Superleggra:
AWD. Huge V10 engine.
Huge brakes to handle the power of the V10.
Huge rims and tires to handle the 200MPH top speed.
Huge, huge, huge.
Weight: ONLY 3,000 POUNDS!
As we can see, the Lambo engineers, like the Corvette engineers, added "lightness" to their cars.

Do not reply with a brain-dead answer like, "But... But... The Lamborghini costs like $200,000." Thank you.

Why oh why do you do this?

WEIGHT: Gallardo weighs more like 3,500 lbs.

BRAKES: The GT-R has 15" rotors FRONT and REAR. Gallardo has 14.4" front and 13.2" rear.

TIRES: Gallardo: 235/35/19 front, 295/30/19 rear
GT-R 255/40/20 front, 285/35/20 rear

Top speed: Gallardo 192 mph, GT-R 191 mph. That extra $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars....say it with me) netted one extra mph on the top end.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by eurohazard

Why oh why do you do this?

WEIGHT: Gallardo weighs more like 3,500 lbs.

BRAKES: The GT-R has 15" rotors FRONT and REAR. Gallardo has 14.4" front and 13.2" rear.

TIRES: Gallardo: 235/35/19 front, 295/30/19 rear
GT-R 255/40/20 front, 285/35/20 rear

Top speed: Gallardo 192 mph, GT-R 191 mph. That extra $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars....say it with me) netted one extra mph on the top end.

Don't worry he has to be the most brain dead person on this site. Most people would call him a one-way-Ray. Straight ahead with blinders on. He couldn't go with the super expensive regular Lambo to get that weight he had to go with the astronomical Superleggra to get there because you pay mega dollars to shed some weight. I guess he has never stood next to a Gallardo either and compared sizes. THE GALLARDO is SMALLER than a Ford Focus TWO DOOR COUPE in every physical measurement. The GT-R plain and simply is not that heavy for what it is. It would be like saying the Vette is an overweight pig because a two seat Lotus is 500lbs lighter (both two seaters right?). Apples to Oranges Ray

[PMC the 1st]

The superleggera like I said is a very long (like longer thean the Vette long) AWD car that weighs you guessed it 3k pounds. Where you people are getting 3.4K pounds is unknown.
The Superleggera and the Vette have lightness added to them like aluminum, titanium and carbon fiber. The GT-R has bacon fat added to it like steel, iron and plastic.
Lots and lots of bacon fat.
For such a tiny engine.
Sorry. Just plain sorry.
No wonder it only costs $59,000.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

The superleggera like I said is a very long (like longer thean the Vette long) AWD car that weighs you guessed it 3k pounds. Where you people are getting 3.4K pounds is unknown.
The Superleggera and the Vette have lightness added to them like aluminum, titanium and carbon fiber. The GT-R has bacon fat added to it like steel, iron and plastic.
Lots and lots of bacon fat.
For such a tiny engine.
Sorry. Just plain sorry.
No wonder it only costs $59,000.

At least when your spewing you ridiculous bias throw a hint of truth in there, you make it too easy for us. Bacon fat? I thought you were older than 15?

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

The superleggera like I said is a very long (like longer thean the Vette long)

Once again the Superleggera is smaller, in every dimension, than the smallest Focus made (2 door coupe).

Superleggera
Wheelbase 100.8”
Length 169.3”
Width 74.8”
Height 45.9”

Ford Focus 2 door coupe (smallest Focus)
Wheelbase 102.9”
Length 175”
Width 78.4”
Height 58.6”

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by big swede

At least when your spewing you ridiculous bias throw a hint of truth in there, you make it too easy for us. Bacon fat? I thought you were older than 15?


Once again the Superleggera is smaller, in every dimension, than the smallest Focus made (2 door coupe).

Superleggera
Wheelbase 100.8”
Length 169.3”
Width 74.8”
Height 45.9”

Ford Focus 2 door coupe (smallest Focus)
Wheelbase 102.9”
Length 175”
Width 78.4”
Height 58.6”

Why are we comparing a Lamborghini to a Ford Focus? WTF?

=

[PMC the 1st]

This is what a Corvette in flight is like:



And this is what a Nissan GT-R in flight is like: