For those of you still wondering about GT-R numbers . . .

The first "same track, same driver" numbers are in. This was at Buttonwillow, a 2.7 mile course.

Bottom line: the GT-R was smoked by the Viper and the Porsche.

Of course, it still won the Car and Drivel comparison, based on things like "back seat" and "driver comfort."

Here are the numbers:

Corvette Z06

0-60 mph 3.8 sec
1/4 mile 11.9 @ 124
Lap time 2:01.7 / 79.9 MPH

Viper SRT10 ACR

0-60 mph 3.4 sec
1/4 mile 11.8 @ 126
Lap time 1:55.7 / 84.0 MPH

Porsche GT2

0-60 mph 3.7 sec
1/4 mile 11.8 @ 121
Lap time 1:59.7 / 81.2 MPH

Nissan GTR

0-60 mph 4.1 sec
1/4 mile 12.6 @ 111
Lap time 2:01.1 / 80.3 MPH

That's the worst GT-R 1/4 mile time I've seen so far. None of the times are impressive(even when compared to other mags), but 12.6 is friggin terrible. I wonder what their excuse is.

Any links?

Viper is looking damn good. I never liked it before they put that hood on it with that dark emerald green...And gave it 600 horsepower...lol.

The elephant in the room has to be the Z06's performance, so I'll bring it up early. WTF?

I've driven the GT2 and found it to be jaw-dropping - but the price tag was a bit steep, even for my extravagant tastes :lol:

Any links?

August 2008 Car and Driver issue--the NAGTROC put up some scans here:

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23102

Interesting! A little surprised by the Z06 numbers, some of the worst I have seen for a Z. However, the numbers are more inline with what I was expecting out of a non-ringer GTR. You simply cannot overcome the fundamental laws of physics.

The Viper, on the other hand, is damn impressive!(and dare I say it, sexy as hell!!!!)

nissan lied

Gotta wonder if the Vette would have done better if the tires were equal. 6 seconds is a wide margin, though.

Edit: Well its no wonder the Viper did so well, its a track prepped car that came with an engineer to dial it in.

it looks to me that they ran in a configuration that benefitted the GT-R's cornering abilities and AWD, yet "low" power. Instead of turning at "Segment 2" and at Lost Hill, the straightline power of everything else would have pulled away fro the GT-R even more.

Gotta wonder if the Vette would have done better if the tires were equal. 6 seconds is a wide margin, though.

Edit: Well its no wonder the Viper did so well, its a track prepped car that came with an engineer to dial it in.
I don't know why Chevrolet won't put some Pilots or Pirellis on the Corvette instead of the dogcrap they use.

So these times overrule all other times published to date? Or do they just indicate what we already knew 'results may vary'?

I think the point was that the times are all on the same field, in the same game.

I think the point was that the times are all on the same field, in the same game.

In this instance. We've also seen times where the GT-R dominated. So unless those times were falsified then I'd say this only proves that in some circumstances the cars can be on par, and in others the GT-R will dominate. Meaning overall the edge still goes to the GT-R.

There are always going to be variables that will put two cars on par with each other when they typically wouldn't be.

I'm not saying that's the case here... I know very little about the cars in question except that I've read other results where the GT-R was killing the rest of the pack. Maybe those were lies though.

What did the GTR dominate?

In this instance. We've also seen times where the GT-R dominated. So unless those times were falsified then I'd say this only proves that in some circumstances the cars can be on par, and in others the GT-R will dominate. Meaning overall the edge still goes to the GT-R.

There are always going to be variables that will put two cars on par with each other when they typically wouldn't be.

I'm not saying that's the case here... I know very little about the cars in question except that I've read other results where the GT-R was killing the rest of the pack. Maybe those were lies though.

I haven't read anything where a GT-R went head to head with anything (I don't keep up though, so I may have just missed it). I've seen 'ring numbers, which may or may not include actually completely lapping the track, or specify a standing or running start. Can't make much of a comparison with that. Maybe there are some 1/4 mile times posted, but tracks and conditions vary. This is the first 'fair' comparison I've heard about so far. I didn't read the article, but I'm assuming they were all stock vehicles? Stock tires..etc.

but I'm assuming they were all stock vehicles? Stock tires..etc.

Viper is a race-ready car, so its rubber is rather sticky. I suspect Porsche GT2 also comes with high quality rubber - it is GT2 after all.

Nissan and Z06 probably have the worst rubber of the bunch.

The Nissan has RE070's which are pretty good

The Viper ACR and Porsche GT2 have Pilot Sport Cups which are even more awesome

The F1 Supercars on the Corvette are nothing impressive (according to TireRack ratings)

What did the GTR dominate?

The GTR beat the Z06 and 911 Turbo by something like a 4 second margin in some road course test done by Road and Track.

Wierd numbers... they make me scratch my head. I've seen everything from 116-124mph traps for the GTR. Ive never seen such inconsistent data for any vehicle, and I've been reading car mags a long time. It makes me wonder what configuration the cars were tested in.. US vs Japanese spec, and whether some of the cars were abused prior to landing in the hands of editors.

It will be intersting to hear real world numbers once owners start getting them in their hands.

The GT-R is a an awesome car, no doubt, but the numbers (all the tests so far recorded) have always raised suspicions in my mind. The cars were all PRE-PRODUCTION and there is at least anecdotal evidence that the 'Ring numbers were "flawed". Honestly, these are the types of numbers I was expecting. Maybe a little higher than I was expecting, but within the range.

However, I find the awarding of points for a back seat downright stupid. One of the many reasons I quit buying C&D (and pretty much all auto rags) years ago.

The GTR beat the Z06 and 911 Turbo by something like a 4 second margin in some road course test done by Road and Track.

Wierd numbers... they make me scratch my head. I've seen everything from 116-124mph traps for the GTR. Ive never seen such inconsistent data for any vehicle, and I've been reading car mags a long time. It makes me wonder what configuration the cars were tested in.. US vs Japanese spec, and whether some of the cars were abused prior to landing in the hands of editors.OR, whether the preproduction cars that were tested by mags and at the 'Ring were a little hotter than production stock. After all, the numbers we're starting to see (116 mph range) make much more sense for the power output of the engine and the physical characteristics of the vehicle, which has a weight-to-power ratio on par with a base Corvette.

I'd personally really like to see a non-partisan (read: non-Nissan employed) tester run a non-partisan (:p) (read: full production spec, off the showroom floor, instead of a preproduction car setup by Nissan) GT-R around the 'Ring.

:)

I'd personally really like to see a non-partisan (read: non-Nissan employed) tester run a non-partisan (:p) (read: full production spec, off the showroom floor, instead of a preproduction car setup by Nissan) GT-R around the 'Ring.


I agree but I'd like to see the same thing for the CTS-V and Z06.

First I found the whole comparison to be stupid. The Viper was modified by a 3rd party (why don't we give the Z06 to Lingenfelter) and the Porsche is about 3x the price of the GTR and the Z06.

That magazine also said the Z06 has the best ride of the bunch and that it was smooth, so perhaps they made it softer for reviews like Clarkson's?

Gotta wonder if the Vette would have done better if the tires were equal. 6 seconds is a wide margin, though.

Edit: Well its no wonder the Viper did so well, its a track prepped car that came with an engineer to dial it in.

You mean 0.6 seconds faster?

First I found the whole comparison to be stupid. The Viper was modified by a 3rd party (why don't we give the Z06 to Lingenfelter) and the Porsche is about 3x the price of the GTR and the Z06.

That magazine also said the Z06 has the best ride of the bunch and that it was smooth, so perhaps they made it softer for reviews like Clarkson's?



You mean 0.6 seconds faster?


I doubt the Z06 is softer so much as it just isn't nearly as harsh of a suspension as the other cars. It isn't like it was Hennesey (sp) was there working on the Viper, so the Lingenfelter comment is a moot point. Regardless, it isn't a apples to apples in my eyes. If the ACR is being tested, it only makes sense for a ZR1 to be there to match up with that, though there isn't a test car yet, they did what they could.

6 seconds...per...lap...

It is sad when the Z06 is by far the slowest car in a magazine test.

I had thought they had said that the red GT-R they tested in the M3 v GTR v 911 Turbo article was the slowest one they had tested... so this silver one was slower than it?

First I found the whole comparison to be stupid. The Viper was modified by a 3rd party (why don't we give the Z06 to Lingenfelter) and the Porsche is about 3x the price of the GTR and the Z06.

The Viper ACR is produced by Chrysler... not a 3rd party, IIRC. It's just a track package for the Viper that removes weight-adding options and such.

The Viper ACR is produced by Chrysler... not a 3rd party, IIRC. It's just a track package for the Viper that removes weight-adding options and such.

Yep.

It's a pretty serious package, with upgraded brakes and coilovers (and the ree-diculous wing), but it's factory.

I agree but I'd like to see the same thing for the CTS-V and Z06.Sure.

I'm personally more interested in the GT-R, though, since the hype was just outta control for the car when Nissan was testing there (and Nissan knew what they were doing regarding the hype).

The "Greatest Hits" list of 'Ring times includes an interesting array of race, modified, and completely stock vehicles. For what it's worth, I posted my real feelings on this whole 'Ring lap time business in the ZR1 thread recently:Until the 'Ring becomes a better-regulated place to "test," I'm going to take any and all time quotes with several handfuls of salt. After learning that people use standing starts vs. running starts, start and stop times in different locations, it just isn't very useful as a consistent way to compare production cars.

Add to that the pre-production status of many of the OEM cars tested there, questions about engine tunes, tire choices, suspension modifications, etc., and it's just not a good situation.When the GT-R was pending release and we were hearing these wild performance claims, many of us were forced to doubt the claims and/or assume that the car was underrated at the 480 hp rating it received. When early cars were matching (or coming close to) Z06 trap speeds and kicking ass on road courses (impressive AWD system notwithstanding), I started to believe the car was underrated and really would kick some ass. I know the fancy AWD and suspension could help pull some lap times that seem to defy the car's weight and available power, but I just couldn't see how a 505 hp / 3130 lb car would be matched by a 480 hp / 3800 lb car in trap speed.

Now that more recent tests have shown some numbers that line up more with the power and weight of the car, I'm starting to think Nissan had some "ringer" pre-production cars. Or, maybe not (as that may help get some hype going, but will certainly make them look foolish later if no production units can match the pre-production cars). Maybe a combination of both. The whole thing is just strange to me.

I will agree, the F1 SC tires on the Z06 are easily being outclassed here vs the near-R compound tires of the ACR/GT2 and RE070.
What if GM developed a track package for Z06:
Pilot Sport Cups on lighter and larger forged wheels
ZR1's Carbon Brakes
Base interior
Shorter throw shifter.
Could span the price gap between Z06 and ZR1? Price the Z06 Track @ around 85k.

The GTR beat the Z06 and 911 Turbo by something like a 4 second margin in some road course test done by Road and Track.

Wierd numbers... they make me scratch my head. I've seen everything from 116-124mph traps for the GTR. Ive never seen such inconsistent data for any vehicle, and I've been reading car mags a long time. It makes me wonder what configuration the cars were tested in.. US vs Japanese spec, and whether some of the cars were abused prior to landing in the hands of editors.

It will be intersting to hear real world numbers once owners start getting them in their hands.

The problem is the "kids" who have claimed this car god of cars..will go back to the prepro numbers as gospel and say it as proof of its king status..
Unless the real GTR number show big changes and it does lose many a tests..:think:

The problem is the "kids" who have claimed this car god of cars..will go back to the prepro numbers as gospel and say it as proof of its king status..

Not this kid. I call :bs:on those numbers from the 'Ring. It's nice to see some numbers come out from people OTHER than Nissan, whether or not they're completely accurate.............

It is sad when the Z06 is by far the slowest car in a magazine test.

I had thought they had said that the red GT-R they tested in the M3 v GTR v 911 Turbo article was the slowest one they had tested... so this silver one was slower than it?

What's interesting is that they already had a red GT-R that ran slower times, and now they have a silver one. They were 2 different articles, 2 different cars, 2 different days.

We will see what other tests show, so far the tests aren't as favourable.

Seems to me of the 4 vehicles tested, GTR, GT3, Z06 and Viper that the easiest car to launch and run a consistent 1/4 mile time would be the GTR with its AWD, auto and lots of techno-gizmos to help launch and accelerate. Yet it seems to have the most discrepancy between mags, events, and Nissan. The more difficult to drive Z06, Viper and GT3 have put down numbers well within the normal limits for what they usually run. Temp, track and weather taken into account.

Car magazines should do like the motorcycle magazines. When they take the bikes to the track, they put the exact same tires on all the bikes.

Car magazines should do like the motorcycle magazines. When they take the bikes to the track, they put the exact same tires on all the bikes. Or run them both ways. Because really, they are evaluating the car as a whole, and tire selection is very much a part of how the car is engineered.

But yes, for track-specific tests (as opposed to their road comparos), I'd like to see them add this feature.

The Viper ACR could be considered a "ringer". Its about as close to a factory race car as you can get.

The Z06 really, REALLY needs some better tires. The F1 Supercars are worthless.

Or run them both ways. Because really, they are evaluating the car as a whole, and tire selection is very much a part of how the car is engineered.

Any Corvette owner who is going to use their car on the track more than likely replaces the tires on the car before anything else. My old boss had Pilots installed on his Mercedes roadster within a week of buying it.

Now, for a Camry or Cobalt owner, they're not going to replace the tires until they go bald, but for a sports car like this...

Any Corvette owner who is going to use their car on the track more than likely replaces the tires on the car before anything else. My old boss had Pilots installed on his Mercedes roadster within a week of buying it.

Now, for a Camry or Cobalt owner, they're not going to replace the tires until they go bald, but for a sports car like this...

Thats true. My friends Dad bought an 02 Z06 about 2 years ago, first thing he bought was tires. Then he went around on the suspension/chassis. I imagine the new Z would benefit even more.

Any Corvette owner who is going to use their car on the track more than likely replaces the tires on the car before anything else. My old boss had Pilots installed on his Mercedes roadster within a week of buying it.

Now, for a Camry or Cobalt owner, they're not going to replace the tires until they go bald, but for a sports car like this...Agreed.

They have to do a balancing act, though, because sometimes they'll run even "normal" cars at a road course so they can explore handling and braking capabilities without the limitations of traffic and speed limits and such. So in those cases, it probably still makes sense to run the OEM stuff.

But again, for cars that might actually see some track time, like the comparo in question here, it would definitely make sense to run them with the same tires across the board (in addition to running some laps with the factory originals to get an out of the box, baseline comparison).

:yes:

Then what's next after tires?? This engine has a more aggressive premium tune while this one is tuned for 87 octane so let's change that by giving this one a custom premium tune. The exhaust on this other car is a lot more restrictive so let's toss in a less restrictive catback to make things more equal here. This one has backseats while this other one doesn't so let's remove the backseats & or spare to equal things out. And the list goes on.

Car's are different and they come prepped and equipped differently from their respective manufacturers. The whole point of these tests is to find out the stock capabilities straight out of the showroom. Just run them like they come from the factory. If you change tires then the vehicle is no longer "stock" imo.

As for the GTR, that's some slow #'s. What's with the crazy inconsistent #'s from Nissan?

C&D tests from the last 4 issues.
May 08 Issue: 0-60 in 3.3 sec, 0-100 in 7.8, 1/4 mile in 11.5@124, Braking 70-0 in 145'
July 08 Issue: 0-60 in 3.6 sec, 0-100 in ??, 1/4 mile 12.1@115mph, Braking 70-0 in 156'
Aug 08 Issue: 0-60 in 4.1sec, 0-100 in 10.2, 1/4 mile 12.6@111mph, Braking 70-0 in 155'

That's quite a drop off. 0.8sec slower to 60, 1.1sec & 13mph slower through the 1/4 mile, and 10' longer to brake from 70. I think the May one was a pre-production ringer. I look at those #'s and the May #'s look too fast, & the Aug Issue looks too slow with the July issue sounding about right given the hp and weight ratings of the GTR. Guess we'll have to wait for more tests & #'s from other mags and actual owners before we know what these cars really run.

Then what's next after tires??


At this level, you're literally testing the tires, not the car. But like I said, anyone who's buying the car to do that kind of stuff with knows that and will replace the tires anyway, and not put much stock into the review from a mainstream magazine.

C&D tests from the last 4 issues.
May 08 Issue: 0-60 in 3.3 sec, 0-100 in 7.8, 1/4 mile in 11.5@124, Braking 70-0 in 145'
July 08 Issue: 0-60 in 3.6 sec, 0-100 in ??, 1/4 mile 12.1@115mph, Braking 70-0 in 156'
Aug 08 Issue: 0-60 in 4.1sec, 0-100 in 10.2, 1/4 mile 12.6@111mph, Braking 70-0 in 155'


There's only 1 way to explain a 13 mph (130hp) drop in 1/4 mile times

Although for the power it's making 111mph sounds pretty low. Usually only Audi's high end cars have high HP ratings and poor trap speeds