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

[Leonidae]

pfft.. it's good to remind that GT-R is faster while being cheaper

 

[YSSMAN]

youd settle for a car you just said wasnt world class?

Because its a Corvette? Seems reasonable to me (lol)...

 

[006r]

Speaking with InsideLine, Corvette Chief Engineer, Tadge Jeuchter, says that the ZR1, "will be able to take the production-car track record at any racetrack," and that although Chevy doesn't have a production version of the uber-Vette at the Nurburgring yet, they're expecting a lap time of "seven minutes, twenty-something seconds."


Pretty cocky comments!! That's not just pointing at the GT-R that's everything out there...

 

[Greycap]

They seriously think they can beat the Carrera GT, the Koenigseggs, the FXX, with a Corvette on steroids? Rrright.

Speaking of what Nissan is doing, the records made by the ZR-1 (if there will be any) are almost destined to be crushed by the GT-R V-spec, the original has already broken 7'30 (if we believe the Nissan guys and why not as we believe the Chevrolet and Porsche guys too) and the V-Spec will have more power, less weight, better brakes, better drivetrain, better suspension, better aerodynamics and probably even better tyres. Those combined should make the ten seconds needed to push it under 7'20.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

They seriously think they can beat the Carrera GT, the Koenigseggs, the FXX, with a Corvette on steroids? Rrright.

Speaking of what Nissan is doing, the records made by the ZR-1 (if there will be any) are almost destined to be crushed by the GT-R V-spec, the original has already broken 7'30 (if we believe the Nissan guys and why not as we believe the Chevrolet and Porsche guys too) and the V-Spec will have more power, less weight, better brakes, better drivetrain, better suspension, better aerodynamics and probably even better tyres. Those combined should make the ten seconds needed to push it under 7'20.

Corvette is an un-deniably good car, even on TG's test track it beats many supercars including the Murcielago. The ZR1 is not just on steroids, or we could say the same about the V-Spec. It seems they both have similar upgrades, so one might think the GT-R will keep the Vette at bay, but who knows. (Thanks for pointing out what upgrades V-Spec is actually getting for me)

 

[YSSMAN]

Really?

I mean, really?

Come on, I may be biased, but yours is showing as well. I seem to recall a time at which the Z06 was the only car behind the Carrera GT, but its been three years, and we've all moved on. The ZR1 stands a very healthy chance of knocking them off, simply put. Saying that it will with absolute confidence is difficult, and I won't. Saying that the V-Spec will sits under exactly the same circumstances. Its going to be fast, and I don't doubt that it will match or beat the ZR1, but nevertheless, we're a year away from that.

They're both shockingly fast cars taking very different approaches to being "fast." Either way, they're both the "last hurrah" in terms of what kind of sports cars they are for their respective companies. The Corvette will get smaller and lose displacement, and I imagine that Nissan will have to re-tool the GT-R eventually for the fuel regs as well.

*sigh*

Hurray US Congress!

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I actually think smaller Corvettes with less powe but same Power:Weight ratio will be better. Same in a straight line, better in corners. And with globalisation, they will lose leaf springs probably too (so no one can bag on them, *cough* Jeremy Clarkson *cough*)

 

[neanderthal]

Because its a Corvette? Seems reasonable to me (lol)...

they was a mustang II that was made.

im sure there was a "high performance" variant that ford put out. isnt this just about the same thing?

except the C4 wasnt a giant hole of suck.

 

[mustangGT90210]

they was a mustang II that was made.

im sure there was a "high performance" variant that ford put out. isnt this just about the same thing?

except the C4 wasnt a giant hole of suck.

Now now. A Mustang II was a POS. No style, no performance. It was just using a mustang name to capitolize a crap car.

Sure, they dropped a 5.0L in at least one year of them, but they made like 200hp tops.

 

[Jim Prower]

Now now. A Mustang II was a POS. No style, no performance. It was just using a mustang name to capitolize a crap car.

Sure, they dropped a 5.0L in at least one year of them, but they made like 200hp tops.

On the other hand, It kept the Mustang name going until it could be revived on a better car. Not to mention, it's front suspension has become VERY popular with hot rodders. Everything else was crap at that time too, and, hey, it could've been a British Leyland product.

It was good for something...just not going fast.

stock.

 

[ferrari_chris]

Speaking with InsideLine, Corvette Chief Engineer, Tadge Jeuchter, says that the ZR1, "will be able to take the production-car track record at any racetrack," ...

How many cars have to be made for it to be classed as a "production-car"?

 

[mustangGT90210]

NASCAR=not production
ZR-1=production

Basically, if it is sold to the public, it is considered a production car, not a race car.

 

[YSSMAN]

GM said the other day that they're only building 2000 ZR1s for global consumption each year, so they're going to be a very small fraction of the total Corvette output. That even makes the GT-R more "popular" in a sense, globally at least. And my guess is that the ZR1 production will only last two or three years, if even that. Its done, probably, in 2011.

 

[Philly]

Come on, I may be biased, but yours is showing as well. I seem to recall a time at which the Z06 was the only car behind the Carrera GT, but its been three years, and we've all moved on. The ZR1 stands a very healthy chance of knocking them off, simply put. Saying that it will with absolute confidence is difficult, and I won't. Saying that the V-Spec will sits under exactly the same circumstances. Its going to be fast, and I don't doubt that it will match or beat the ZR1, but nevertheless, we're a year away from that.

I'm very heavily biased against the GT-R myself, but I just can't help but admit that the Nissan will probably be faster. I would doubt the Corvette's ability to be all that much faster than the regular GT-R, let alone think of challenging the V-Spec.

In the end, the question that should be being asked is whether the Nissan can do it again without all the electronics driving the car. Is the GT-R still faster than the Corvette if there isn't a billion computers constantly adjusting the settings of every different shock absorber, the amount of power than can go to each individual wheel, braking force in each rotor or the compression of each individual cylinder? Will it do the same if there is a real human actually driving the car (like in the ZR1) instead of just telling it where to go?

They're both shockingly fast cars taking very different approaches to being "fast." Either way, they're both the "last hurrah" in terms of what kind of sports cars they are for their respective companies.

It seems like they were both built for different purposes though. The Chevy is more of an honest sports car built to go fast and things where the Nissan just feels like a publicity stunt to say "Hey guys! Look what we can do!"

 

[Tornado]

Is the GT-R still faster than the Corvette if there isn't a billion computers constantly adjusting the settings of every different shock absorber, the amount of power than can go to each individual wheel, braking force in each rotor or the compression of each individual cylinder? Will it do the same if there is a real human actually driving the car (like in the ZR1) instead of just telling it where to go?

And, in the end of the day, does anyone really care either way?

 

[Philly]

And, in the end of the day, does anyone really care either way?

I would rather drive my car than have it drive itself if I'm out trying to have fun with my car. So yes, I care at least.

 

[YSSMAN]

And I agree with the very same sentiment, however, its going to be (to some extent) the computers that make the ZR1 fast... Between the Magnaride suspension and Stabilitrak (that is, if you leave it on), they're going to be the systems keeping you on the road.

 

[Danny]

I'm going with the GTR, mostly because it has a suspension design devised this century.

Chevrolet can cram as much power as they want into the Corvette, I really can't see it backing up the claims.

All torque, no trousers.

 

[ferrari_chris]

NASCAR=not production
ZR-1=production

Basically, if it is sold to the public, it is considered a production car, not a race car.

So the Caparo T1 is a production car then.

And they think the Corvette will beat that F1 in disguise?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Production car does need to meet a certain quota of vehicles produced a year. I think it's like 500 or something, but I could be way off.

 

[Jim Prower]

So the Caparo T1 is a production car then.

And they think the Corvette will beat that F1 in disguise?

It WILL be a production car once they get around to them not crashing or catching fire...

 

[superberkut]

The GT-R just gives that aura of speed and agility. One can imagine it to be much more nimble around the corners than the Corvette ZR1, but that may be a stereotype for these cars.

It would otherwise be very close, unless it rained on one part of the track and not on the other during the test.

 

[niky]

Excuse me, but I'm going to play both sides of the debate, just to, as Randy Jackson would say: "Keep it real, dawg"

It seems like they were both built for different purposes though. The Chevy is more of an honest sports car built to go fast and things where the Nissan just feels like a publicity stunt to say "Hey guys! Look what we can do!"

Any flagship sportscar will end up being an exercise in marketing. The NSX was one, the Corvette is one, the GT-R is one. But make no mistake, marketing exercise, halo car, vanity piece... whatever... these are still serious sports cars.

The GT-R's lineage goes back nearly twenty years... the Skyline that spawned it, longer than that. It has always been used as a showcase for Nissan's strengths, such as all-wheel steering, turbocharging, all-wheel drive, etcetera. These aren't just publicity stunts... GT-Rs are bought to be driven, and driven hard. You can still see old Skyline GT-Rs making the rounds of various racetracks, in forms from stock to lightly-modified to gonzo. That's what they're built for.

I would rather drive my car than have it drive itself if I'm out trying to have fun with my car. So yes, I care at least.

As for the idea that the GT-R drives itself... no, it doesn't. We've already seen half-a-dozen (maybe less, I dunno) or so crashes with the R35. There's no supercomputer driving the car. No, it's there to help you throw the car into a bend and drift it or grip it at very silly speeds. But it's not going to allow you to drive stupid. (just ask those idiots who parked it on the curb) You still have to pay 100% attention and you still have to have a good idea of what you're doing. The computer is just there to make sure that the R35 poses no nasty surprises that you're not expecting, like uncontrollable snap oversteer or tail-wagging. The end result? The R35 is easy to drive not because it drives itself, but because it's predictable and stable.

But like the R34 before it, if you don't know what you're doing, it can bite... and bite really hard. It just won't bite as often as, say, a Porsche 911.

Of course, I'd like a completely organic car, myself... but not many are, nowadays...

I'm going with the GTR, mostly because it has a suspension design devised this century.

Chevrolet can cram as much power as they want into the Corvette, I really can't see it backing up the claims.

All torque, no trousers.

And to play the other side of the debate... the pushrod and leaf-spring debate is ages old on this board. Shame on you for bringing it up! But last I looked, coil springs were invented last century, while the magnetorheologic suspension going into the ZR1 (though originally conceived some time ago) is still as sci-fi as it gets in terms of suspension.

Pushrods, meh... whatever gets the job done. Like I've said before, power is power, no matter how you make it. And if you can make power out of a relatively lightweight and compact package, and make it reliably, you're all set... doesn't matter if the engine is OHV, OHC, rotary or diesel... okay, maybe not rotary, not yet... but you get what I mean.

The one big thing against the ZR1 is whether the trick suspension will be enough to overcome its traction deficit versus the GT-R. We won't know until it puts a wheel on track

 

[Philly]

Any flagship sportscar will end up being an exercise in marketing. The NSX was one, the Corvette is one, the GT-R is one. But make no mistake, marketing exercise, halo car, vanity piece... whatever... these are still serious sports cars.

The thing about those cars is that they aren't nearly as hyped up as the GT-R is. Don't get me wrong. These are all great cars, GT-R included. It's just that Nissan has taken it to a different level and said "here is the greatest car ever. Worship us for it." And they haven't really let people stop talking about it.

As for the idea that the GT-R drives itself... no, it doesn't. We've already seen half-a-dozen (maybe less, I dunno) or so crashes with the R35. There's no supercomputer driving the car. No, it's there to help you throw the car into a bend and drift it or grip it at very silly speeds. But it's not going to allow you to drive stupid. (just ask those idiots who parked it on the curb) You still have to pay 100% attention and you still have to have a good idea of what you're doing. The computer is just there to make sure that the R35 poses no nasty surprises that you're not expecting, like uncontrollable snap oversteer or tail-wagging. The end result? The R35 is easy to drive not because it drives itself, but because it's predictable and stable.

But in the end, it is a supercomputer that is actually driving the car. Sure, there is a person in the car turning the wheel, but it is the car doing the work. The GT-R just comes across as a car where the person at the wheel is simply telling the car where to go and the car does the figuring out how to get there. Perhaps it's not the case in race driving, but when I'm just driving for fun, it's those little surprises that would make it so much more fun. I would much rather have the feeling that I am turning the wheels and that my inputs are what is making the car do it's stuff than feeling like I'm just telling the car what I think it should do.

 

[YSSMAN]

...while the magnetorheologic suspension going into the ZR1 (though originally conceived some time ago) is still as sci-fi as it gets in terms of suspension...

Depends on which way you look at it I guess. Cadillac has been using the system since the early '90s (to some success), and its been available on the Corvette full-time since the C5 generation. At least in terms of getting it right, that wasn't until Ferrari and Audi fiddled with it that it became a "proven" technology. Thats not to say that Chevrolet was behind the ball, the problem was, they never programmed it aggressively enough (much less, had the material to do it) until recently. I seem to recall a Corvette test in Car and Driver where they took the MagaRide, Z51 and Z06 (all C5 generation) and swapped the tires around to see who handled better... As I recall, the MagnaRide with the Z06 tires ended up doing nearly as well as the Z06 of the era.

I think that they can get it right, and with more than a year already spent at the 'Ring, things should work out well in the end.

Remember:

This suspension was originally supposed to go on the Z06, but the problem was, it was too expensive/heavy/under programmed to get the job done (at the time). Things are very different these days with the newer, heaver-duty pieces with those microprocessors chipping away at the settings thousands of times a second.

 

[Tornado]

I would much rather have the feeling that I am turning the wheels and that my inputs are what is making the car do it's stuff than feeling like I'm just telling the car what I think it should do.

The funny part is that if Nissan let no one know that the car had so much electronic wizardry no one would be any the wiser. How good a car/driver interface is has nothing to do with lack of electronic things within. The Lamborghini Gallardo has 1/3rd as much gadgetry (none of which works properly), and it has about as much soul as a can of beans; the Nissan 300ZX was a better driver's car than the 350Z is; the Skyline R32 destroyed the Porsche 964 in feel; etc. Not every car ends up turning into a 3000GT when you add technology to it; nor do driver aids automatically mean the car will become a Lexus.

 

[neanderthal]

The thing about those cars is that they aren't nearly as hyped up as the GT-R is. Don't get me wrong. These are all great cars, GT-R included. It's just that Nissan has taken it to a different level and said "here is the greatest car ever. Worship us for it." And they haven't really let people stop talking about it.

What bull excremement is this? I'm gonna call on this one.

Show me where Nissan said "this is the greatest car ever," and i'll show you where Nissan said we are going to build a car that will go with the best cars ever for much less than they cost.

And as for people talking about it, thats because it ran a sub 7:30 at the ring. How many production cars have ever done that? And i'm not talking about race cars with lights and a license plate like the radicals and their ilk. i'm talking standard production car with air conditioning and all that. Tell me how many. And then try to tell me that it's not a great achievement.

But in the end, it is a supercomputer that is actually driving the car. Sure, there is a person in the car turning the wheel, but it is the car doing the work. The GT-R just comes across as a car where the person at the wheel is simply telling the car where to go and the car does the figuring out how to get there. Perhaps it's not the case in race driving, but when I'm just driving for fun, it's those little surprises that would make it so much more fun. I would much rather have the feeling that I am turning the wheels and that my inputs are what is making the car do it's stuff than feeling like I'm just telling the car what I think it should do.

By your reasoning any car with power brakes or power steering or any assists for the operation of the vehicle is a "supercomputer driving the car." In your haste to lambast the GTR you've conveniently overlooked the fact that the nut behind the wheel is the one who has to turn the steering and apply the braking and accelerator as necessary. The ZR1 is going to have power steering, brake force distribution, magnerhoidal blah blah blah suspension that reacts to undulations in the road surface faster than the driver can even recognise them. How is that different from the GTR?

The Nissan does not corner for you. It apportions torque to the wheels as necessary to apply the maximum amount of traction to the ground. So does the Corvette. It's called traction control. Heck, it will even stiffen up the outside suspension to reduce the lean in the corners. Just because the GTR is all wheel drive and suddenly its a supercomputer?

Get your facts straight. And try to not let your fanboyism show so blatantly

 

[niky]

Well, lucky for GM to have had the input from the 599 experience. But then, in relation to what I said about another car in another thread... who cares who's responsible? It's the end result that's important... and the technology came from GM in the first place.

Still, judge the car. Not the company, not the ingredients. Which is why I'm still waiting to see how good the ZR1 is. Simply because we haven't seen it in its entirety, and any speculation on what it can or can't do is just that, speculation.

Regarding hype: Nissan is no less or no more guilty of hyping its car than anyone else. They issue the same press releases, they release the same tech articles, and they give the same test drives. C'mon, it's no worse than GM tooting its horn on the Corvette ZR1... or the 1,000,000 special editions of the Mustang that Ford releases each year to give them an excuse to stay in the news.

It's the automotive press, and the online "press" in particular, that are going ape-manure nuts over the car and posting the wildest and bizzarest news about the GT-R imaginable. It's come to the point where some publications have had to publish interviews and articles debunking a ton of the mis-information, wild rumors and speculations over the car.

Did Nissan purposely engineer all this hysteria? In my opinion, no. But mention the word "GT-R" to any room full of enthusiasts and they'll all have, off the top of their heads, a ream's worth of information regarding the GT-R. Most of it, since it doesn't come straight from Nissan but has circulated the internet a few times through the rumor mill, completely false.

Nissan couldn't have asked for a better way to spread interest in the car. They don't even have to do more than lift a finger and a zillion articles about it crop up on the internet. And they don't even need to do press releases anymore, as everyone is clamoring to get an interview or a feature to give people the "truth" about the GT-R.

It's silly. But you can't blame the car for the hysteria. Or maybe you can. Maybe it's just that special. Or maybe, thanks to video games, the GT-R is the closest thing to a rock star in the automotive world. Loved by some, hated by others, but known by everyone under the age of thirty and with the ability to spell the word "google".

Again, judge the car, not the company, not the hype. And the GT-R, from all reports, is a damn good car.

----

As for the "computer" thing... well, if you value a twitchy, unpredictable ride, that's your thing. For me, getting my car on track doesn't involve making it as tricky as possible to drive. It involves finding ways to make it more stable, more predictable and better-handling. An LSD, for example. Is it cheating because it makes it easier to power-slide (which my car can't do, even with an LSD) and alleviate understeer (which my car, unfortunately, does)? Are sticky road tires cheating because they allow you to push to silly speeds without experiencing unstable handling? Is a sports suspension cheating if it allows you to take a chicane without spinning out from sudden snap-oversteer when the car jinks back the other way? You can throw all those things at a car and it'd still drive like a wet dog. Or it could drive brilliantly. Just because a car isn't as nervous on the race-track as a 1970's 911 (and not even the new 997 911 is as nervous as a 1970's 911) because it's designed not to kill you doesn't make it bad.

Remember, the GT-R will not steer for you, brake for you or accelerate for you. The computers are just there to give you maximum traction where you need it. Think of it as an adaptive LSD.

Of course, shifting is another story, but that's an argument for another thread entirely.

And in the course of an argument like this, the ZR1's adaptive suspension comes into question. That'll allow you to take corners at higher speeds than you normally would. That's not as intrusive as an adaptive AWD system, but the end result is the same. For those of us looking for a totally organic experience (yes, I'm of the same mindset), the Porsche GT3RS (not the Turbo or GT2... too much PASM) is probably the sportscar that comes closest.

 

[Famine]

And as for people talking about it, thats because it ran a sub 7:30 at the ring. How many production cars have ever done that? And i'm not talking about race cars with lights and a license plate like the radicals and their ilk. i'm talking standard production car with air conditioning and all that. Tell me how many.

Whoah there. Our Mazda MX-5 - one of over 800,000 sold - doesn't have air conditioning. Is it not a production car now?

Radicals and Caterhams are production cars. You can go along to the factory, part with your £20k+ and buy the car that set the time on the 'Ring (though you may have to wait while it's built) in fully road-legal spec. Just like you can with the Ariel Atom, and that has even less stuff on it (like bodywork, a windscreen, doors - you know, that stuff) than the Radicals/Caterhams/Westfields/Donkervoorts. Road legal and production car - and can be used as a daily driver.


You might not like it, but these little cars are production cars which you can drive to the 'Ring and away again, having set an obscene laptime (if they'd let you time yourself, which they don't). Mind you, the fact the Nissan can come close with only twice the power hauling almost 4 times the weight is quite, quite extraordinary.

 

[Alex.]

While my vote is the same as yours, I highly disagree with your statement.

I do understand what he says about the 6 litre jobbies, you guys could do a little bit better BHP wise in some cases.

I'm gonna go with the ZR1, and I dont know why. The z06 on TG was said to handle quite well and that was going to be my only argument against it.

ZR1:tup: