GT2 vs ZR1 vs 599 vs GTR
10-29-2008, 12:30 AM
#16
Rennlist Member
OG, for a sub 4secs 0-60 time, more than half of the effort is the launch (0-100ft time). With AWD, the launch is no brainer (until something breaks!).
Your front engine RWD monster is much harder to launch properly to get the best time. Our Porsche's rear engine layout make it second best to AWD for a good launch
Your front engine RWD monster is much harder to launch properly to get the best time. Our Porsche's rear engine layout make it second best to AWD for a good launch
10-29-2008, 12:39 AM
#17
Rennlist Member
The video from Driver's Republic? They got 4.0 seconds out of the GT-R...
0.1 second slower than the Carrera S w/ PDK..
Maybe the clutch was worn on that car or it is down on power.. I don't know..
But yeah, 3.2 sec is very fast.. ha!! Must be a very strong example..
But the GT-R was still 4 seconds a lap faster around the track... (again, on the Driver's Republic video that you posted..)
0.1 second slower than the Carrera S w/ PDK..
Maybe the clutch was worn on that car or it is down on power.. I don't know..
But yeah, 3.2 sec is very fast.. ha!! Must be a very strong example..
But the GT-R was still 4 seconds a lap faster around the track... (again, on the Driver's Republic video that you posted..)
10-29-2008, 12:46 AM
#18
Rennlist Member
If previous generation GT-Rs are any indication (there have been R34 V-Spec, etc.), the V-Spec should retain AWD and probably 200-250 lbs weight loss.. and maybe more aero work on the bodywork.. (i.e., more aggressive wing, ha!)
Of course, this is all speculation for now..
Of course, this is all speculation for now..
vspec will be rwd and have some weight loss, but still weigh around 3500lbs. if you guys haven't figured out, te gtr isn't making 480hp, it's making more like 510hp. with the amount of different dyno tests having been done. 3.2s 0-60 isn't that difficult to believe, my 3750lb stealth with only 320hp does it in 5.0, with the right setup and 480hp it's does 3.4 no issues, and it's 17yrs old(my god!) though yes i'm a gamer generation person, i'd still rather a nissang skyline gtr-34 over the 35, it' to big and bulky.
10-29-2008, 01:05 AM
#19
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
What ever the time it was good to see the Carrera beat the GT-R at launch time.
If the GT-R did a 3.2 0-60 then there is a Carrera S PDK out there that can do
Sub 3 0-60
j/k
If the GT-R did a 3.2 0-60 then there is a Carrera S PDK out there that can do
Sub 3 0-60
j/k
10-29-2008, 01:26 AM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
For Nissan it will be easy to make an AWD lighter V-spec. The problem is: "who is going to buy a $100,000+ Nissan?".
Just with seats, Carbon brakes, light exhaust, light wheels, rear seat delete and a few carbon or aluminum or plastic body parts and they can shave 200+ lbs. Power, well more boost, the beauty of forced induction.
0-60 means nothing to me. Drag races are about 1/4 mile times, cars are so powerful these days that 0-60 is limited by weight transfer, traction and tires rather than engine power.
At the track, 0-60 means nothing. 60-100, 60-130, 80-130 are more meaningful figures of track straight line acceleration performance. I know I can always brake later with the 1,000+ lbs lighter car, go faster around the turn and exit at a higher speed.
Just with seats, Carbon brakes, light exhaust, light wheels, rear seat delete and a few carbon or aluminum or plastic body parts and they can shave 200+ lbs. Power, well more boost, the beauty of forced induction.
0-60 means nothing to me. Drag races are about 1/4 mile times, cars are so powerful these days that 0-60 is limited by weight transfer, traction and tires rather than engine power.
At the track, 0-60 means nothing. 60-100, 60-130, 80-130 are more meaningful figures of track straight line acceleration performance. I know I can always brake later with the 1,000+ lbs lighter car, go faster around the turn and exit at a higher speed.
10-29-2008, 01:49 AM
#22
Rennlist Member
10-29-2008, 02:55 AM
#23
Drifting
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northwest NJ
Posts: 2,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm thinking the r35 vspec will be rwd for the idea of motorsport, and compition to the gt2. yes i know the previous gens were awd, but they also weighed about 3500lbs, 300 less then the current version. i'm thinking the vsepc will be rwd, 2seats, around 550hp, and better trans gearing/shifting time. they'll aim for 3200-3250lbs. lighter wheels, more carbon fiber, less plush interior(maybe a delete on the navi/comp system), light seats/non power seats. nissan knows the gtr has a lot to live up to, especially in the motorsports world. the r32(for those that don't know) won the first 39 races it was entered in(or some rediculus number like that) it's also the sole reason behind the JGTC being created.
i don't think there will be a Nur spec though. i can't wait for a tommy karia version or the nismo version...which already tested at tuskuba.
and believe it not, i wouldn't pay 80g for the gtr, so screw the over 100g thing.
as for the 550hp amg, there's an amzing difference with awd and launch assist over the rwd trying to hook right or get a good launch. my stealth awd keeps up off the line with a carrera, it's not until 3rd gear i get passed.
i don't think there will be a Nur spec though. i can't wait for a tommy karia version or the nismo version...which already tested at tuskuba.
and believe it not, i wouldn't pay 80g for the gtr, so screw the over 100g thing.
as for the 550hp amg, there's an amzing difference with awd and launch assist over the rwd trying to hook right or get a good launch. my stealth awd keeps up off the line with a carrera, it's not until 3rd gear i get passed.
10-29-2008, 10:21 AM
#24
Rennlist Member
Watching the 'Vette accelerate was fun! Everyone goes on and on about the interior...tear out the seats, replace them with recaros, have the dash covered in leather and fancy stitching and you've got a supercar WITH a nice interior. Just because GM couldn't figure out how to do it wouldn't stop me from buying one.
10-29-2008, 03:03 PM
#25
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a recent print publication (I think it was October, 2008), R&T ran a test of "ultimate track cars," including GT2, GT-R, Z06, Gallardo, etc. They ran on 4 different tracks. The article mentioned adjusting the suspensions at each track by pushing buttons in the cockpits. At least one of the cars (the GT2) has adjustable ride height and adjustable anti-roll bars (not from the cockpit of course). Further, accompanying the article was a side article about the technologies in these cars, and mention was made of the GT2's adjustability. It got me to wondering...if they were really trying to see what the cars can do on the track, wouldn't they adjust everything available to them? Heck, if you're going to test a car's capability, why not really explore it?
10-29-2008, 04:08 PM
#26
Nordschleife Master
In a recent print publication (I think it was October, 2008), R&T ran a test of "ultimate track cars," including GT2, GT-R, Z06, Gallardo, etc. They ran on 4 different tracks. The article mentioned adjusting the suspensions at each track by pushing buttons in the cockpits. At least one of the cars (the GT2) has adjustable ride height and adjustable anti-roll bars (not from the cockpit of course). Further, accompanying the article was a side article about the technologies in these cars, and mention was made of the GT2's adjustability. It got me to wondering...if they were really trying to see what the cars can do on the track, wouldn't they adjust everything available to them? Heck, if you're going to test a car's capability, why not really explore it?
10-29-2008, 04:33 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
Yes and no. I've talked/thought about this a lot and come to the conclusion that the press car should be in the same configuration the car is sold in, and tested that way. It's the only fair way to do it. ANY car will benefit in the slalom from a tire-shredding alignment, etc. Cars like the GT2, ACR, etc. will obviously benefit even more. But, to me, the key is evaluating the car in the "compromised" setup the factory engineers decided to SELL the car with. This way, it applies to more people and is a better, more fair evaluation.
I was actually VERY disappointed to see a recent magazine article or two in which manufacturers were allowed to have a team of engineers reconfigure their cars between the various tests to optimize it for each, while the other manufacturers, who didn't think of it, simply supplied the car. Anyone who drove an early 996 GT2 in stock form and then aligned more aggressively knows how much a few simple adjustments can affect a car's handling, and the same holds true for the current RS, 2, etc.
The best solution, of course, would be to take the cars, test them in as-delivered specs, then have a team of engineers optimize each one for the task at hand and then re-test them. This would make for a fascinating read, but very few magazines would have the budget, scope, interest, page space, or ability to do this.
Of course, now you get to the next part of the equation: driver. Do you use the magazine staffers for times (I am always dubious of this) or a hired pro? Or, do you use the factory shoe because he/she will be best able to extract the car's best? I hate it when I see a front-engine/rear-drive-favoring book rate Porsches down the ladder because their handling dynamics are unfamiliar and thus don't allow those drivers to gel in quite the way a Porsche buyer would. However, their impressions are VERY valid in that many of their readers, like them, may bring a broader perspective than we Porsche nuts tend to, coming from different brands/cars/etc.
Point is, there is a LOT to think about when evaluating these cars, and, from my limited experiences, I can say that the amount of work that goes into some of these big-book tests would simply blow you away.
Taking it to the next level would, well, blow me away.
pete
P.S. Allegretto: all that (!!!) said, I agree that, too often, some car mags seem, uh, lazy. But I've seen some tests more recently that show me they are waking up.
I was actually VERY disappointed to see a recent magazine article or two in which manufacturers were allowed to have a team of engineers reconfigure their cars between the various tests to optimize it for each, while the other manufacturers, who didn't think of it, simply supplied the car. Anyone who drove an early 996 GT2 in stock form and then aligned more aggressively knows how much a few simple adjustments can affect a car's handling, and the same holds true for the current RS, 2, etc.
The best solution, of course, would be to take the cars, test them in as-delivered specs, then have a team of engineers optimize each one for the task at hand and then re-test them. This would make for a fascinating read, but very few magazines would have the budget, scope, interest, page space, or ability to do this.
Of course, now you get to the next part of the equation: driver. Do you use the magazine staffers for times (I am always dubious of this) or a hired pro? Or, do you use the factory shoe because he/she will be best able to extract the car's best? I hate it when I see a front-engine/rear-drive-favoring book rate Porsches down the ladder because their handling dynamics are unfamiliar and thus don't allow those drivers to gel in quite the way a Porsche buyer would. However, their impressions are VERY valid in that many of their readers, like them, may bring a broader perspective than we Porsche nuts tend to, coming from different brands/cars/etc.
Point is, there is a LOT to think about when evaluating these cars, and, from my limited experiences, I can say that the amount of work that goes into some of these big-book tests would simply blow you away.
Taking it to the next level would, well, blow me away.
pete
P.S. Allegretto: all that (!!!) said, I agree that, too often, some car mags seem, uh, lazy. But I've seen some tests more recently that show me they are waking up.
10-29-2008, 07:33 PM
#28
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I read some negative comments over C&D, Motor Trend and R&T test results recently.
These three magazines have improved a lot in the recent years. I've been reading these magazines for a few years (over 20 years).
Now we get telemetry data, g-forces, acceleration and speed through turns, braking from high speeds, lap times at many different race tracks. AutoX laps in the hands of a Pro autocrosser, staff drivers are being replaced by experienced track drivers and pro-drivers.
I was checking lap times at California Speedway (now called AAA Raceway) with SpeedVentures (great track group). I found a Nissan GT-R with a 1:52 at the Long Course with infield. My best time with my modified 996 GT3 on Toyo RA-1 was a 1:52 as well.
To put things in perspective, the PCA Club Racing track record is a 1:53 for the class where a 996 GT3 would run (slower/heavier than my modified GT3 but Hoosiers are allowed).
I personally like the concept of the "Lightning Lap" by Car and Driver. It's a test of over 10 cars at Virginia International Raceway. The results are compared across 3 years of testing.
Lightning Lap Cumulative 2006/2007/2008 Times
Mosler MT900S- 2:45.9 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR- 2:48.6 (2008)
Ferrari F430 Scuderia- 2:54.6 (2008)
Nissan GT-R- 2:55.6 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT-10 (600Hp) - 2:57.4 (2007)
Chevrolet Corvette Z06- 2:58.2 (2007)
Ford GT- 3:00.7 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06- 3:01.1 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette Z51 6.3L- 3:01.2 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT10- 3:01.6 (2006)
Porsche 911 GT3- 3:01.8 (2007)
Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z51 6.0L- 3:03.6 (2007)
Cadillac CTS-V- 3:04.0 (2008)
Lotus Exige S- 3:04.5 (2007)
Audi R8- 3:04.6 (2007)
BMW M3- 3:05.6 (2008)
Porsche 997 Turbo- 3:05.8 (2007)
Ford Shelby GT500- 3:05.9 (2007)
Mercedes Benz C63 AMG- 3:06.5 (2008)
Lotus Elise- 3:09.2 (2006)
Chevy Corvette C6- 3:09.3 (2006)
Porsche Cayman S- 3:09.5 (2006)
BMW M6- 3:10.0 (2006)
BMW 335i Coupe- 3:10.5 (2007)
Ford Shelby GT500 3:11.0 (2006)
Audi RS4- 3:11.2 (2007)
BMW Z4 M- 3:11.7 (2007)
Nissan 350Z Track 3:12.5 (2006)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged 3:13.0 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR SSTT (semi-auto)- 3:13.3 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX MR- 3:13.5 (2006)
BMW 135i (steptronic automatic)- 3:13.7 (2008)
Lexus IS F- 3:14.0 (2008)
Audi S5- 3:14.6 (2008)
Honda S2000 CR- 3:15.0 (2008)
Pontiac Solstice GXP- 3:15.7 (2007)
Mazda Speed 3- 3:16.0 (2007)
Dodge Challenger SRT8- 3:16.3 (2008)
Lotus Elise SC- 3:16.6 (2008)
Infiniti G37 Sport- 3:17.5 (2008)
Dodge Charger SRT8- 3:18.2 (2006)
Subaru Impreza WRX STI- 3:19.0 (2008)
Mazda RX-8- 3:19.0 (2006)
Chevy Cobalt SS (Supercharged)- 3:20.6 (2006)
Dodge Caliber SRT4- 3:20.8 (2008)
Ford Mustang GT- 3:20.9 (2006)
Volkswagen R32- 3:21.8 (2008)
Mini Cooper S (Turbo)- 3:22.9 (2007)
Honda Civic Mugen Si- 3:24.8 (2008)
Volkswagen GTI- 3:25.1 (2006)
Honda Civic Si- 3:26.5 (2006)
Volvo C30 T5 Version 2.0- 3:26.6 (2008)
Mazda MX-5- 3:29.3 (2006)
These three magazines have improved a lot in the recent years. I've been reading these magazines for a few years (over 20 years).
Now we get telemetry data, g-forces, acceleration and speed through turns, braking from high speeds, lap times at many different race tracks. AutoX laps in the hands of a Pro autocrosser, staff drivers are being replaced by experienced track drivers and pro-drivers.
I was checking lap times at California Speedway (now called AAA Raceway) with SpeedVentures (great track group). I found a Nissan GT-R with a 1:52 at the Long Course with infield. My best time with my modified 996 GT3 on Toyo RA-1 was a 1:52 as well.
To put things in perspective, the PCA Club Racing track record is a 1:53 for the class where a 996 GT3 would run (slower/heavier than my modified GT3 but Hoosiers are allowed).
I personally like the concept of the "Lightning Lap" by Car and Driver. It's a test of over 10 cars at Virginia International Raceway. The results are compared across 3 years of testing.
Lightning Lap Cumulative 2006/2007/2008 Times
Mosler MT900S- 2:45.9 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR- 2:48.6 (2008)
Ferrari F430 Scuderia- 2:54.6 (2008)
Nissan GT-R- 2:55.6 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT-10 (600Hp) - 2:57.4 (2007)
Chevrolet Corvette Z06- 2:58.2 (2007)
Ford GT- 3:00.7 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06- 3:01.1 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette Z51 6.3L- 3:01.2 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT10- 3:01.6 (2006)
Porsche 911 GT3- 3:01.8 (2007)
Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z51 6.0L- 3:03.6 (2007)
Cadillac CTS-V- 3:04.0 (2008)
Lotus Exige S- 3:04.5 (2007)
Audi R8- 3:04.6 (2007)
BMW M3- 3:05.6 (2008)
Porsche 997 Turbo- 3:05.8 (2007)
Ford Shelby GT500- 3:05.9 (2007)
Mercedes Benz C63 AMG- 3:06.5 (2008)
Lotus Elise- 3:09.2 (2006)
Chevy Corvette C6- 3:09.3 (2006)
Porsche Cayman S- 3:09.5 (2006)
BMW M6- 3:10.0 (2006)
BMW 335i Coupe- 3:10.5 (2007)
Ford Shelby GT500 3:11.0 (2006)
Audi RS4- 3:11.2 (2007)
BMW Z4 M- 3:11.7 (2007)
Nissan 350Z Track 3:12.5 (2006)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged 3:13.0 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR SSTT (semi-auto)- 3:13.3 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX MR- 3:13.5 (2006)
BMW 135i (steptronic automatic)- 3:13.7 (2008)
Lexus IS F- 3:14.0 (2008)
Audi S5- 3:14.6 (2008)
Honda S2000 CR- 3:15.0 (2008)
Pontiac Solstice GXP- 3:15.7 (2007)
Mazda Speed 3- 3:16.0 (2007)
Dodge Challenger SRT8- 3:16.3 (2008)
Lotus Elise SC- 3:16.6 (2008)
Infiniti G37 Sport- 3:17.5 (2008)
Dodge Charger SRT8- 3:18.2 (2006)
Subaru Impreza WRX STI- 3:19.0 (2008)
Mazda RX-8- 3:19.0 (2006)
Chevy Cobalt SS (Supercharged)- 3:20.6 (2006)
Dodge Caliber SRT4- 3:20.8 (2008)
Ford Mustang GT- 3:20.9 (2006)
Volkswagen R32- 3:21.8 (2008)
Mini Cooper S (Turbo)- 3:22.9 (2007)
Honda Civic Mugen Si- 3:24.8 (2008)
Volkswagen GTI- 3:25.1 (2006)
Honda Civic Si- 3:26.5 (2006)
Volvo C30 T5 Version 2.0- 3:26.6 (2008)
Mazda MX-5- 3:29.3 (2006)