Whats your take...Nissan GT-R vs ZR1

[BlackedoutRX7LM]

I'm just nitpicking here, but do you really want to the world to still be in Model T's?

Most guys here, myself included, think Nissan just went overboard on the computers. Some computers are good, but theres one or two too many systems on the GTR

Obviously not into model t's

But how about F1 cars? Those have got to be a blast to drive and they have more technology than any car in the world

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

...And I'd still be the "crazy guy" and take the step-down to the Z06. Its nothing personal against the ZR1, but I wouldn't want to pay the money. The Z06 matches the GT-R under most circumstances, so why get the other one? Sure, I appreciate the "ZOMG" factor that the ZR1 has... But meh, its just not my style.

I guess this would make me insane then, but I would just take the regular C6.

But how about F1 cars? Those have got to be a blast to drive and they have more technology than any car in the world

It probably wouldn't be such a blast if my neck would be sore after two turns.

 

[BlackedoutRX7LM]

It probably wouldn't be such a blast if my neck would be sore after two turns.

Gotta get in shape, do those neck exercises and probably get working on your core.

 

[niky]

Actually, racing cars aren't quite as "fun" to drive as road cars. The limits are razor-sharp... no smooth breakaway, no counter-steering fun... just whoops... you're spinning.

And they don't have that much steering feel, either, apparently, given what some writers have said. Power steering and all that...

Personally, I don't like over-computerized cars, but I'm with-holding judgement on the GT-R because I've never driven it. People whose opinions I respect have driven it and found it to be fun, if a little lacking in the "feel" department compared to the Porsche GT3.

Don't knock it till you've tried it, I always say. And if you've tried it and it's crap... go ahead and bash the hell out of it.

 

[BlackedoutRX7LM]

Personally, I don't like over-computerized cars, but I'm with-holding judgement on the GT-R because I've never driven it. People whose opinions I respect have driven it and found it to be fun, if a little lacking in the "feel" department compared to the Porsche GT3.

I dont see how can compare the GT-R to the GT3 consider the 30k price difference, and wasnt the standard 911 the target for the GT-R? Maybe im wrong, but i think the VSpec would be comparable to the GT3 possibly.

 

[Prosthetic]

I dont see how can compare the GT-R to the GT3 consider the 30k price difference, and wasnt the standard 911 the target for the GT-R? Maybe im wrong, but i think the VSpec would be comparable to the GT3 possibly.

Do you not get it? GT-R is the cheap super car that goes like hell... Of coarse . Just because it's 30k cheaper doesn't mean you can't compare the car, and considering the mark ups and performance it delivers, I think that the V-Spec can wipe clean the GT3 if the GT-R performed that well against it.


And people who say the GT-R has no soul because of computers... You can turn all the power help and such off, when JC did it while on the mountain road on the last leg of the journey he said it really started to feel alive. But personally I think anything that can has lots of power and can reach 190+ (not like I would drive it that fast) should be lots of fun

 

[BlackedoutRX7LM]

Do you not get it? GT-R is the cheap super car that goes like hell... Of coarse . Just because it's 30k cheaper doesn't mean you can't compare the car, and considering the mark ups and performance it delivers, I think that the V-Spec can wipe clean the GT3 if the GT-R performed that well against it.


And people who say the GT-R has no soul because of computers... You can turn all the power help and such off, when JC did it while on the mountain road on the last leg of the journey he said it really started to feel alive. But personally I think anything that can has lots of power and can reach 190+ (not like I would drive it that fast) should be lots of fun

I get it, I love the GT-R and it exceeds everything in its class. But I dont get people comparing it to the ZR1 or GT3, when thats what the VSpec is gonna be for.

 

[niky]

Well, the ZR1 and GT-R are the "bargain supercars" of the moment. The comparison of the GT-R and GT3 was valid before the GT2 came out, because the GT3 was the most driver oriented 911 at the time (the GT2 still isn't as driver-focused as the GT3, but it's got some of the focus of the GT3 matched with the power of the Turbo).

Now that the GT2 is out, it's to the GT2 that the GT-R is being compared, even though, technically, it should be GT2 versus GT-R V-Spec. Same with the ZR1. Same with the Superleggera, etcetera.

With cars like this, price isn't much but another detail, and raw performance becomes more of the bragging point. That's why manufacturers are in a tizzy to out-do each other on the 'ring at the moment. It's the "in-thing". You note that nobody's all that concerned about the Zonda, since that's an exotic supercar, but everyone is putting in a little extra to "beat" the GT-R's 'Ring numbers, just to show that they can do it.

Which really shouldn't be all that hard. The GT-R has the advantage of great tires and AWD traction, but a well-sorted RWD car with good tires should be able to either match or exceed it.

 

[ferrari_chris]

Niky pretty much hit the nail on the head why Ring times are pointless. You could easily take both cars out on a different day under different conditions (mainly traffic) and have them run a different time. Whereas if it was a closed track, like Tsukuba or Silverstone you would see closer times due to less variables and more laps to generate an average. ...

Check out this video:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/ZR1-Nurburgring-Official_170754.htm?Ref=Newsletter&emc=el&m=188198&l=8&v=b05493bd4d

Not another car in sight. These timed runs are often performed on closed tracks.

... I firmly believe Ring times are worthless in the grand scheme of things other then using them to say, well that car is fast around the Ring and that one isn't. Times that are 2 or 3 seconds off from one another don't really tell a whole lot which is the point I'm trying to make.

On a race track like Fuji or Silverstone, times would be so close it'd be pointless. Ooooh, the Z06 is 0.02 faster. And that's better than having a measurable margin between times?

Im not sure about the GT-R's run, but the ZR1 had a clean run with basically no traffic.

If im not mistaken there are a lot of days the 'Ring is closed to manufacturers only, and most of the fast runs are done with little to no traffic.

👍

Even one car makes a difference though. Also how many laps to they typically do when they go for a Ring time? I don't know but I can't imagine it's more than one or two. On other shorter tracks they would be able to run 10, 15 or 20 laps and get an average time, which to me says more about the car's performance.

Corvette spend a lot of time testing on The 'Ring. Testing. Not just performing a timed run, actually gathering data and developing the car.

As do other manufacturers. That's why we constantly see development cars disguised there.

I can't to see how you can say that times generated on a traditional, variable free racetrack can be more realistic or relevant to a road car than times generated on a "super road". These are road cars being judged here - why not judge them in a harsh environment? A non-perfect environment, like they will (should?) be driven in once purchased.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Check out this video:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/ZR1-Nurburgring-Official_170754.htm?Ref=Newsletter&emc=el&m=188198&l=8&v=b05493bd4d

Not another car in sight. These timed runs are often performed on closed tracks.


On a race track like Fuji or Silverstone, times would be so close it'd be pointless. Ooooh, the Z06 is 0.02 faster. And that's better than having a measurable margin between times?


👍


Corvette spend a lot of time testing on The 'Ring. Testing. Not just performing a timed run, actually gathering data and developing the car.

As do other manufacturers. That's why we constantly see development cars disguised there.

I can't to see how you can say that times generated on a traditional, variable free racetrack can be more realistic or relevant to a road car than times generated on a "super road". These are road cars being judged here - why not judge them in a harsh environment? A non-perfect environment, like they will (should?) be driven in once purchased.

Because you shouldn't be driving fast on the road anyway, if you're going to do that you take it to a track. And as has been pointed out, there is too large a margin for error on the ring.

Call me crazier than the lot of you, I'd take a HDT VE Commodore over anything in the world.

 

[Jay]

Call me crazier than the lot of you, I'd take a HDT VE Commodore over anything in the world.

You are just crazy!

 

[Joey D]

Check out this video:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/ZR1-Nurburgring-Official_170754.htm?Ref=Newsletter&emc=el&m=188198&l=8&v=b05493bd4d

Not another car in sight. These timed runs are often performed on closed tracks.

Often, not always. I will admit I was wrong. It's still just one lap though so not an average time.

On a race track like Fuji or Silverstone, times would be so close it'd be pointless. Ooooh, the Z06 is 0.02 faster. And that's better than having a measurable margin between times?

Yes, it shows just how similar the cars are performance wise. Three seconds on the Ring could be from anything. If a car is only .02 seconds quicker than you know both cars have more or less the exact same performance and you can say that without fanboys jumping down you neck. However, on the Ring people seem to thing 3 seconds is a lot, when in reality it's just as close as .02 seconds on a smaller track.

Corvette spend a lot of time testing on The 'Ring. Testing. Not just performing a timed run, actually gathering data and developing the car.

As do other manufacturers. That's why we constantly see development cars disguised there.

I can't to see how you can say that times generated on a traditional, variable free racetrack can be more realistic or relevant to a road car than times generated on a "super road". These are road cars being judged here - why not judge them in a harsh environment? A non-perfect environment, like they will (should?) be driven in once purchased.

Because you aren't allowed to drive all out on public roads, however once it gets to the track you can go all out all you like. That's the environment it should be made to go fast in.

The Ring is pointless in my opinion and I could not care less about the the times generated unless they are significantly different then they car they are being compared to. If the ZR-1 would have beat the GT-R by 15 second then it would have been a different story. I've covered all of this already though, so has niky in previous posts.

 

[BlackedoutRX7LM]

I dont know about you, but if I could test a sports car anywhere in the world it would be at the 'Ring because if it performs well there, it'll perform well just about anywhere else.

Likewise, in Gran Turismo i take my cars to the 'Ring and pass judgment, not at La Sarthe, Suzuka, Tskuba or anywhere else.

Just my .02

 

[Prosthetic]

I dont know about you, but if I could test a sports car anywhere in the world it would be at the 'Ring because if it performs well there, it'll perform well just about anywhere else.

Likewise, in Gran Turismo i take my cars to the 'Ring and pass judgment, not at La Sarthe, Suzuka, Tskuba or anywhere else.

Just my .02

WAT? The Ring is a super fast pace track, a set up for there will NOT work very well at La Sarthe, Suzuka, and Tskuba. Especially Tskuba actually, thats a super small track and not a huge beast with 100billion mph average speed.

GT4=/Real Life

 

[BlackedoutRX7LM]

WAT? The Ring is a super fast pace track, a set up for there will NOT work very well at La Sarthe, Suzuka, and Tskuba. Especially Tskuba actually, thats a super small track and not a huge beast with 100billion mph average speed.

GT4=/Real Life

Exactly why i would want to run at the 'Ring...

 

[ferrari_chris]

Fair enough Joey D. I see where you're coming from. Although I don't like this paragraph:

... Because you aren't allowed to drive all out on public roads, however once it gets to the track you can go all out all you like. That's the environment it should be made to go fast in. ...

If it were a track based road car we were discussing (say, the Ariel Atom for instance) I feel you'd be inclined to call it pointless, and say "that it's a useless road car as it doesnt even have a windshield. It's not a road car if it can only be used on the track." Or words to that effect.

But, I get your point.

 

[Scaff]

WAT? The Ring is a super fast pace track, a set up for there will NOT work very well at La Sarthe, Suzuka, and Tskuba. Especially Tskuba actually, thats a super small track and not a huge beast with 100billion mph average speed.

GT4=/Real Life

Actually one of the reasons why the 'ring is favoured by manufacturers for a test bed is down to the wide range of differing corners, cambers and speeds along its length. Yes it does have some very fast 'wide open throttle' parts, it also has a lot of slower sections which have almost constant direction changes. All factors that test the transient characteristics of a car to a huge degree. It also has one thing in abundance that real world roads have, but are often absent from modern tracks (or minimal in comparison to real world roads) and that is camber changes. Throw in some very steep gradients as well (again absent from other tracks) and you have a quite unique and challenging track.

In regard to the comparisons to real world tracks above, the 'ring and Le Sarthe have quite a bit in common, from heavily cambered public road sections to long high speed runs. However your argument could be applied to any two circuits, a set-up for Suzuka would do you no good at Tskuba.

What the 'ring does do is allow cars to that have a good overall chassis and suspension set-up to shine, as without those a strong consistent lap is almost impossible.

Using the 'ring to set fastest laps and then using them to compare two cars is a fun game, but at the end of the day its always going to be difficult to compare them accurately. The same is however true of any track, as unless the cars are run back to back then air temperature, track temperature, wind, humidity and a whole host of other factors will throw out any comparison.

The same is true of 0 - 400m (1/4 mile) times, 0-100-0 times, standing miles/kms, 0-60mph, 0-100mph, 400m/yard radius skidpans, slalom tests, etc. You name it and its will can and will be affected by the above factors, unless the cars are run straight after each other. Yes smaller tracks (and shorter tests) will have lower time discrepancies, but as long as the tracks distance is taken into account it can be factored for. As Joey says, 3 seconds on the 'ring is the same as 3 tenths on another track, as long as distance is factored in they can be compared.

Throwing out 'ring times for the reasons given is pointless, unless you intend throwing out times for every track. The argument that the 'ring does not allow consistent lapping is also a myth, the track gets hired by manufacturers regularly for private testing and the drivers who carry out this testing cover thousands of miles a year at the track (and as a result thousands of laps). Keep in mind that drivers can consistent lap times at the 'ring during the 24hrs (just as they also do at Le Sarthe for the 24hrs), so the argument that lap times are set (and that testing is done under flawed conditions) is simply a myth.

All the above however will never stop people arguing about who is fastest around the 'ring, nor would it be any different if the favoured track of manufacturers was Laguna Seca, Le Mans, Suzuka or Anglesey.

Regards

Scaff

 

[GTR DUDE]

yup sometimes it depends on the track and the driver but skyline would get around fast bust still don't won't to judge til you see

 

[Perfect Balance]

it also has a lot of slower sections od overall chassis and suspension set-up to shine, as without those a strong consistent lap is almost impossible.


Scaff

There are many "slower" sections, but not any you would call "slow."

It's still a quick paced high speed track in which the faster car in a straight line always has an big advantage as long as it doesn't completely suck at cornering. A sports car will generally fall somewhere around .90-1.10 lateral g's, yet the speed falls anywhere from around 140 to 200+ mph, which makes for a big difference when talking about a high speed track.

The advantage a good handling car has in the corners is greatly outweighed by the extremely long straights, and I think this is pretty obvious. I don't think a Lotus Exige on racing slicks could match that time.

 

[Scaff]

There are many "slower" sections, but not any you would call "slow."

It's still a quick paced high speed track in which the faster car in a straight line always has an big advantage as long as it doesn't completely suck at cornering. A sports car will generally fall somewhere around .90-1.10 lateral g's, yet the speed falls anywhere from around 140 to 200+ mph, which makes for a big difference when talking about a high speed track.

The advantage a good handling car has in the corners is greatly outweighed by the extremely long straights, and I think this is pretty obvious. I don't think a Lotus Exige on racing slicks could match that time.

Having driven the track myself I would have to disagree with you, while a good power to weight ratio is an advantage (and far more important than HP alone - which give you an advantage on one section of that track alone, and only then if its closed to the public otherwise the toll booth sections break up the straight), two things are critical to setting a strong laptime at the 'ring.

First and foremost is knowledge of the track itself, you often see newcomers in very, very fast cars getting easily beaten around by hot-hatches, simple because they are being driven by someone who knows the particulars of the track. The second is a good suspension set-up, without this using all the power in the world is simply not going to happen at the 'ring; the track has so many off camber corners, nasty transient changes, compressions and rises, that half the problem is keeping the tyres and road in contact with each other.

As an example one of the quickest cars around the ring is still the Donkervoort D8 270 RS, which runs 345 bhp and weighs around 600 kg. Its also has the aerodynamics of a brick (they will be running a similar drag co-ef to a Caterham which puts they around the 0.7 mark), a problem common to all open wheel cars of this type. Its top speed being 250kmh / 155mph and its acceleration seriously suffers over the 100 - 120 mph mark (as drag starts to take its toll).

Now despite suffering all of these problems to straight line performance its still significantly quicker around the track that just about anything.

Big power and a high top speed are handy on the 'ring, but only of you can lay that power down, and that's one of the very serious challenges the 'ring provides as a track.


Regards

Scaff