falchulk

2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 vs. 2013 Nissan GT-R Premium Road Test ? RoadandTrack.com

4.7 to 60 and 12.6 in the 1/4

Silverado C-10

My recent motor trend has 0-60 @ 3.8 sec and the 1/4 mile 12.1sec @ 117.4mph. Their driver sucked?

Why are they even comparing the ZL1 to the GTR? The ZR1 should be what it's compared to.

That's because it's a pointless comparison...

Sax1031

Kind of like putting the ZL1 against a Boss LS and not the 2012 GT500.

Silverado C-10

I didn't like that comparison either... but at least they're in the same category with only an $8k price difference...

MarcR94v6

I believe it, many magazine testers couldn't break the LS2 GTO out of the 14's.

96_Camaro_B4C

Unless they have changed since I last looked, Road & Track does not correct for weather conditions when they run.

Car and Driver and Motor Trend both complained of poor traction at Inde when they tested the ZL1. I assume Road & Track was there the same day. I hadn't even heard mention of the altitute (4000 ft.) in the first two articles, but R&T mentioned that as well. R&T has almost always posted slower times for a given vehicle than the other two, and I'm sure most of that is because they do not correct to standard atmospheric conditions.

falchulk

I don't buy it. The numbers make no sense. Forced induction compensates for elevation to an extent but the gtr was right were it should be at sea level.

96_Camaro_B4C

What don't you buy?

I think all the big auto media players were there for the same event (hence all testing at Inde Motorsports Park or whatever it is called). Do you think GM accidentally handed R&T a regular SS (that ran way faster than any other stock SS, especially considering the elevation)? Or do you mean that the R&T guys just can't drive the car?

I'm not selling anything. I'm just not sure what you are inferring from the slower times posted by R&T.

Note that both R&T guys said they'd rather drive the Camaro home from the track, as the GT-R is apparently not as nice in "normal driving" conditions. They also seemed to have more fun in the Camaro, even though the surgical GT-R was faster around the track. Maybe they were being a bit generous since they know the comparison was a little silly in the first place, but it seems to me the Camaro gave a pretty good showing for itself (especially considering it costs half the price of the GT-R).

HAZ-Matt

So... GTR will list at $96,820 for 2013.

CD did 12.3s @119mph.

I know nothing about corrections for atmosphere, at least in regards to who does them or what formulas the mags might use.

Bob Cosby

In general, elevation has a greater effect on blown motors than it does on turbos.

HAZ-Matt

Partly because if you reference boost to absolute pressure with a turbo there is little difference (you still make X psi, with a little less efficiency). There is no boost control on a crank driven supercharger, other than bypass for part throttle.

graham

And the 2010 SS against the 2009 or 2010 GT500 also IIRC.

Sax1031

definitely

guionM

You shouldn't buy it because they actually tell you why in the article.

I have that issue and Road and Track stated the reason for the ZL1 Camaro's less than spectacular times right there in the sidebar (all one simply has to do is take a second to read it). It states in the box labeled "Test Notes" that the ZL1's times were compromised due to inconsistent launches (they called it "hit or miss") even with the launch control on, and even with 3000 rpm launches.

The GT-R is All Wheel Drive, and almost certainly doesn't need an as aggressive launch control (and with 463 lbs/ft of torque going through 4 wheels isn't going to be anywhere near as difficult to launch) as a Camaro that is attempting to use 556 pound/feet of torque through 2 rear wheels shod with something other than racing slicks.


The tempreature was 45 degrees, but it was at 4400 ft altitude. Would have thrown the times dramatically in a na car, but I doubt it would have thrown off the supercharged Camaro any more than the turbocharged Nissan.

Regarding car rag times, I believe R&T averages acceleration times while M/T goes for the quickest time (I know C&D does corrections for altitude and tempreature). Thats why every so often, R&T winds up with the slowest published times while M/T usually winds up with the quickest.

Another subject that was brought up:
As far as the claim that car mag testers couldn't get a GTO out of the 14s, that is irrelevent. Anyone can get quicker times than a car mag in perfect circumstances. Cold dense air in the winter will give you better times, as will dropping the tire pressure in the rear on RWD vehicles or even running on a day when you have a tail wind. If you're competing at a dragstrip, you're employing every trick you know to win the race. Magazine car testers have to run cars the way they roll out of the showroom

The point of testing cars at a magazine is to create a way of having a consistent enviroment and method of testing where the reader can accurately compare one car's performance...out of the showroom, and at manufacturer's specs... against another, using the same yardstick.

Most drivers at car rags have been doing this for many years, and one can say honestly that they probably spend more time at the drag strip than 99.9% of us here (they do this most every day, not just weekends). I know a couple. They know what they're doing.

So, sure.... You will sometimes get your times lower than theirs. You will also in some circumstances get worse times than they do. You (as well as they) might also end up with that one in every few hundred cars that seems to run better than the same car others have.

So just remember, their times (like EPA mileage numbers) are for comparison and what you can realistically expect. Your driving habits or changes from manufacturer's specs might create a different result.

I'm not sure about that...how so?

My 2002 B4C was absolutely spanked by a Lightning heading up the steep north side of the Grapevine after I played with him in the low flat part of I-5 a half hour beforehand. Meanwhile, when I had my SC birds, during trips to Phoenix in the summer, I'd notice that my Thunderbirds lost quite a bit of power.

I am extremely aware firsthand that heat renders superchargers less effective, but also that superchargers (and I'm guessing turbos as well) aren't as affected by high to altitude power losses. Why do you say turbos less so?


Back to the ZL1, one other thing that may or not be worth mentioning about the apparent ZL1 times. The LS1 GTOs lost power in heat due to their computer programming (overly cautious about engine preservation?). It is possible that the programing for the traction control-engine output is equally tuned to reduce power in certain circumstances.

Bob Cosby

Mat pretty much nailed it...

Unless the turbo is already pretty maxed out, it will simply spin higher until it makes whatever boost it is supposed to make prior to the wastegate opening. A supercharger is limited in rpm by whatever pulley arrangement it has.