This was posted on my local board.

[quote name='astig00' date='May 4 2008, 07:59 PM' post='13246']
Well, the Z made it's maiden voyage down the 1320 today. The best I could get outta her was 12.00@ 117mph. It was rather warm at the track so maybe I can get a few more tenths off of the et.
[/quote]
[quote name='astig00' date='May 4 2008, 08:42 PM' post='13256']
2.0. I didn't air down or anything. Just tech'd in and ran it.
[/quote]

 

Don't bother saving it for future 5gen debates, if that's your plan. Muscle cars are allowed to be hefty... supercars costing $75k or more are not supposed to be.

 

Amen and well said.

 

ROFLOL. Yup - that is absolutely my plan.

So the title makes all the difference, huh? A GT-R is a "supercar", thus not "allowed" to be heavy? Guess that's debateable....and a pretty poor out, IMHO.

Do you agree that you would never mistake a GTR from something costing in excess of $100k? Doesn't sound very supercar-ish in that respect either.

And I thought Camaro was a pony car (much like the Mustang), and vehicles like the Challenger, Charger, & GTO were muscle cars? Heck, I'd even include the G8 GT in that category.

Guess that's debateable too though...especially when the possibility of debate helps one's position on a certain subject.



Yes Jason.

PS....I would still MUCH prefer the Z06.

 

You're right. But in the context of the GTR's achievments, it is. Time is the best indicator of performance. If the time's right, the weight issues becomes a non-issue.

 

Pony cars can cross into muscle car territory but not the reverse...........

 

No you wouldn't unless you want to blow up your engine. The Z06, with hypereutectic pistons doesn't take too well to boosting.

Just saving you an engine... in case you have too much cash on the side!

 

LOL. Mmmkay.

Completely and totally disagree (what makes a time "right"?), but we all have our opinions.

 

I knew you we're sitting behind the scenes watching us pick apart the GT-R and bring reality to it's time due to it's portly curb weight... and I bet you had Camaro on the mind the whole time.

Well while we don't know the curb weight of the 2010 Camaro it probably won't be light enough for many of us and probably heavier than the 4th Gen F-bodies.

But I think there is a big difference between the GT-R and the Camaro. The Camaro isn't a display of a whole corporations tech and engineering prowness. Nissan could really spare no expense on the GT-R if they wanted. At it's price point there "could" be quite a bit more cost spent on weight savings. Just look at the C6 from GM as an example. Sure the C6 is light at $45k but push the price to $70k in the Z06 and you can get an aluminium frame and lots of other weight saving goodies.

How would that be justified at the Camaro's price point. Like we know so well the difference between a fast car and a faster one is usually money. It also costs a lot for weight reduction.

 

I don't give a rats *** about the GT-R. I do care about Camaro, hence my comments.

That said - I was not at all comparing this car to the 2010 Camaro (there is obviously a big, big, difference).

I might be dumb, but I'm not that dumb.

Bob

 

On specs alone, I'd say the GTR is an abject failure. I would reason that there is no way anything that heavy could lap the 'Ring faster than a turbo Porsche... or Z06 for that matter. Therefore, the time is right and the GTR is a 'proven' track weapon. It's not just quick in a straight line, it's corner speed is almost superior to anything on the road short of BIG $$$. It almost defies belief.

However, there is only one caveat to my statement... assuming the GTR lapping the 'Ring was a genuine production vehicle and not some worked race car.

 

Amen, and well said.

 

We've known that for a long time:

That's what I was going to say. I have a little old black Buick coupe with a turbo 3.8L V6 in my garage that keeps up with my Camaro surprisingly well with just a couple of minor mods. Another handful of modifications would make it faster (in a straight line) than the GT-R without sacrificing any streetability (and potentially improving it). It gets about 25mpg on the highway, too.

 

Turbos also use otherwise wasted exhaust energy.

 

Modern turbos also don't run pig-rich like they had to 20 years ago. Engine management has come a long ways since then, and we now have the wonders of closed-loop operation at high loads and throttle openings via wide-band O2 sensors.

Just like with diesels, people have some misconceptions about turbochargers that just won't go away that are based on decades-old observations.