They're talking about the time between when the vehicle hit 100mph and when the driver got on the brakes. There's no easy way to measure that time, and there's no easy way to subtract "extra" time spent accelerating beyond 100mph (or braking from the peak MPH down to 100).

 

Probably 600-900 bucks extra for destination.

Still, it's obvious this car is going to MSRP in the same price class as the Z06 which starts at 71,275 without destination or a single option.

The GT-R actually has a few things standard on it that the Z06 charges for - like nav.

So to me it looks like the GT-R, is if anything, slightly less expensive than the Z06 if you don't factor in inevitable dealer markups on the GT-R when it first comes out (and who knows for how long after that).

 

Road&Track did such a comparison with a professional driver... somone posted it earlier, here's the quotes

 

So then, if the Z06 driver really botched the reaction time, and caused the Z06 to be way behind the GT-R, then the GT-R is a way better car? No, that only means that the Z06 driver sucked that much more.

We're not racing an NHRA race here, we're comparing cars, not drivers. The GT-R and the Z06 are so close they could've been sand-bagging the Z06 just to try and prove their point that the GT-R > *

With a good driver behind the Z06, the Z06 may have edged it out. And besides...I'd like to see what the quarter mile times would be without the GT-R's speed limiter.

 

To play devils advocate, the article stated they only did one trial with the GTR. Had they done more trials, perhaps they could have improved their time and made the Z06 look worse.

The Z06 is obviously faster in a straitline, I dont see why everyone is so upset. Its limited for traction, and has wider spaced gearing making the 0-100 times for the cars very close, but beyond that I don't think anyone questions that the Z06 will walk away. This isnt the first 0-100-0 test either, which I think people here are implying was done to hedge the GTR's outcome. Road and Track has done these tests before on other cars....

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....page_number=11


Compare that with the 14.0 this magazine got for the Z06 and 13.9 for the GTR. Theyre both in good company. Quarter mile times are posted right above your post. Look at the Z06's trap speed vs. the GTR's. Its obviously a faster accelerating car. The et's are very close though.

I have been following the GTR since it became unveiled. When it comes to all around performance, I think its fairly safe to say the GTR outperforms the Z06. There is much more that goes into a performance car than a curb weight and horsepower rating...

On another note, hopefully this will also go to help quell people's fears that a heavier than 4th gen Camaro still has the potential to be an excellent performance machine. I think people here are a little to worried about a car's weight at times.

 

Like an underrated horsepower rating, sticky gumball tires, and an unhealthy amount of hype clouding the testers' minds?

 

It very well could be underrated, but that doesnt make it any less impressive. LS1 F-bodies were underrated, does that discredit their Mustang busting numbers when they were making on ~50hp more than advertised? I dont think so.

As for tires, the car comes with what it comes with. If the tires are stickier than whats on the Vette, thats just life. GM could have put stickier tires on the Vette if they wanted to.

Hype? People were excited by what they expected to be a world class sports car at a "bargain price." Dual clutch transmission, advanced all wheel drive system, fancy twin turbo V6. This car has a lot of stuff packed into it that you are hard pressed to find somewhere else... To a lot of people, this car represents the pinnacle modern technology in an automobile.

I think the differences in the cars are what the author was trying to illustrate in the article. He uses vivid adjectives to state how the Vette is simple, big V8, v8noise, heavy acceleration and a big 6 speed shifter. It kind of reminds of why I like my Z28 so much... I don't think he's dissing the car, but just illustrating its raw character. Driving the GTR on the other hand seems more like piloting a futuristic vehicle of some sort teeming with buttons, different driving mode switches, launch control and a seamless dual clutch transmission. Just my $.02 though....

Regardless, the GTR is what it is.... may it be underrated, sticky tired, hyped up.... whatever you want to call it, it is what it is, and if it sticks to the price point that Nissan has announced, with the numbers it's putting up it is definately living up to the hype, and that can't be argued.

 

Bottom line, as I see it. It IS an impressive car. AWD shows it's benefits. For my money, I would still take the Z06, without even a second thought. I am sure there are people who will say just the opposite. That's cool. Having incredibly performing machines at this price bracket is good, having competition to keep manufacturers on their toes is even better. FWIW however, I still think the GTR is ugly, amazing performer, but ugly. YMMV.

 

Even with their underrated numbers, the LS1 F-bodies still had 40 more HP than the Mustang GT. It wasn't a surprise if they beat a GT. The GT-R, on the other hand, is advertised as having significantly less HP and torque than the Z06, and weighs far more, yet it almost equals the Z06 in acceleration. You can't say gearing comes into play, as the GT-R has a top speed of over 190 MPH (without the speed limiter), IIRC. The Z06 has a top speed of 198 MPH, so the GT-R is close. The AWD system can't account for the extra performance. Nissan underrated the car, plain and simple, and that has to be taken into account.

Except that it's like comparing apples to oranges. How much better would the Z06 be with tires like the GT-R's? How much worse would the GT-R be with tires like the Z06's?

Just because the tire is what comes on the car doesn't mean it's a direct, fair comparison. The Lotus Exige S comes with Yokohama Advan A048s, a competition DOT tire. Would it be fair to compare its performance to a similar car with street tires? No.

It can most certainly be argued, because once again, it won't be a direct comparison. If everything is equal, then the GT-R will have earned respect. If tests like this one continue, though, the GT-R will always be a "what if?" car.

 

Looking at the track graph it looks like they were really inconsistent with the Z06. I think this may be a driver issue.

 

I see a lot of bitterness in here about the GT-R living up to it's hype and outperforming our beloved Z06.

So what? The Z-0 had just the same amount of hype when it was announced, and I'm sure there were people on Porsche and Viper boards making the same arguments that people on here are of the tests not being equal, catering to the Vette.

The Z06 is not a new car anymore. When it comes to the quickly advancing world of supercars it's age is going to start to show after 3 years. There is always something bigger and better on the horizon...


...like the ZR-1 .

 

The difference between the Z06 and the GT-R is that the Z06 wasn't underrated at all. It performed exactly as it was expected to.

The GT-R, on the other hand, is extremely underrated, giving the impression that it somehow is performing above and beyond what it should be capable of. Some people then try and use this as evidence of the GT-R being a superior car. In reality, all it shows is that this car is a huge ball of hype.

It's not bitterness. It's a desire for truth and cold hard facts. I have no problem if the GT-R outperforms the Corvette, as long as it's on equal footing and it's not under false pretenses.

 

Whether or not it's living up to people's performance expectations is irrelevant. People look at the numbers. They see that it's heavier and that it has less horsepower. Then they look at the results, and they see that it won the race, and then they assume that some other criterion must have come into play. The car's magical high-tech gizmos or whatever.

Plain and simple: the GT-R makes significantly more horsepower than Nissan claims.

None of that detracts from the fact that Nissan has in fact raised the bar for performance per dollar.

 

Agreed.

For those who can get past the weird styling, there will be a couple more tests of their devotions before they will be able to be happy with a GTR. One, reliability. The car's gee-whiz AWD system will be a weak link on real roads with bumps and potholes. Two, Nissan isn't exactly setting quality records (see http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...df/2007088.pdf , shows their initial quality is below industry average and below Chevy, Buick, and GMC). Three, market prices will bid up the street price way above the sticker, kind of the Achilles Heel of under-rating a car in such a niche. So what seems like a great bargain won't be, once EBay and profit-maximizing dealers get done.

 

Still, the GTR is not a clear winner. The results are too dang close. Even the review says it's on equal terms with the Z06. I have a feeling that we will get reviews that go both ways on this one. They are extrememly competitive, which is way more than I thought I would be saying. Props to Nissan for having the ***** to come out with a machine like this.

I'm still waiting to see what price they put on their website when you can actually buy one of these.

Dan