http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6591

 

Fuel economy: 17.5mpg...that's the same as what they got for G35S.......lol...

I wonder how 911 Turbo tiptronic would do in the test, considering it's a bit faster than the 6MT model, according to Porsche.

 

wow exact same 0-60 times for all three

 

I don't get how the 1/4 mile times are within a .1 of each other but the 0-120 is so dramaticall different. Trying to logically explain it with the AWD/rear engine advantage thing doesn't make sense, and the 0-120 was from a dead stop as was the 1/4 mile.

Someone please explain....

 

911 Turbo

Points: 380.7
Lap Times: 2:02.1


Zo6

Points: 384.2
Lap Times: 2:02.2


GT-R

Points: 386.6
Lap Times: 1:56.9




DAMNNNNN the GT-R fucking destroyed both of them on the track.

The Corvette is crazy fast, the acceleration times are impressive

 

The GTR has dual clutch gearbox, that means lightning fast shifting. Basically, shifting takes like no time on that car, that's why its so fast from 0-90/100mph. The other two cars, you have to manually shift the gears, and that's a lot slower than what the dual clutch gearbox can do, even for pros. The AWD like you said, also helps. By the way, 1st gear in the Vette can go up to 60mph, that's why even though it's much slower from 0-40mph, it can catch up to the other two by 60mph. And its power to weight ratio is superior to the other two, as well as less drivetrain loss means that it will pull away as speed climbs up. From 100mph and on, the GTR is simply not as fast as the other two, that's because of its much heavier weight. The GTR has super close gear ratios too, and it will reach its top speed at redline in 6th gear. The Vette on the other hand, will hits top speed in 5th gear. 6th gear is purely there for "cheating" on fuel economy tests.

 

Not to be an asshole.... and I really mean this in the nicest way, but thanks, I literally knew all of that already, and it didn't answer my question.

What I asked was why there was such a difference in between the 0-120 and 1/4 mile time, which still doesn't make sense. The 911 TT's time is the only one that makes sense, it finishes the 1/4 mile at 11.7 @ 121.2 and it takes 11.5 to get to 120.

For the Z06, it runs the 1/4 mile at 11.7 @ 123.7. But for 0-120 it only takes 10.7. So it takes a full second for the Z06 to go from 120mph to 123mph?

Same for the GTR. 1/4 at 11.8 @ 116mph. 0-120 for the GTR however is 12.7. It takes the GTR nearly a whole second to go from 116 to 120?

I know that there could have been a small difference for reaction times/shifting but the final time is usually an average or the lowest time. Are their g-timers that off? Even still there's just a huge disparity between the numbers that it simply doesn't make sense. In these cars even in triple digits the speedo should be flying, and a single second would make a pretty big difference.

 

I can't wait to hear "the car is to heavy" comment, or the "it's to easy to drive" or the "this is an over rated car" comment

Thanks Jackygor for the post.

 

Oh, that is for the GT-R since I was an idiot and didn't put it on my lats post.

 

Different runs? Taking averages? I dunno if it could explain a full second though.

 

thanks for posting! i'm still trying to wrap my head around all the numbers - the closest 60 and 1/4 miles times i've ever seen! although, it's not always about numbers for me. corvette, out of this group anyway, ftw

 

maybe the car had to shift gears at that point?

 

6 seconds around the track

 

This test is unbelievable to me. 6 seconds faster than a Z06 around Buttonwillow is a lot of time.

Okay, I've got a point to bring up now that I've read the numbers. Look at the Z06 and 911 TT numbers, they are nearly identical on the track. Every test that I've read shows that the Z06 spanks the Turbo and even beat the GT3. Was Steve Millen a bit biased?

 

Another possibility, but the GTR's shift times are nearly non-existant in "R" mode. If the Z06 has 3.42 gears it should still be in 4th at over 120.

Can't believe it took 6 seconds off of the Z06 and 911 TT times.

 

DING DING DING! I believe that is the answer as well!

GTR engineers must laugh in the face of physics when they were designing this car. 3800 lb man!!! and it pwns Z06 which is 700 lb less and has more power at the same time! I guess weight doesn't really matter when fine engineering is involved.

 

Something doesnt seem right with some of the #s. And i thought the GTR had bridgestones and not dunlops

(road and track sucks at automotive comparisons as well)

 

AWESOME.

 

Nope, it still doesn't make sense. Even with the lightning quick shifts it takes another second for 4 mph? Even if it had to shift EXACTLY at that point (1/4 mile), it still makes no sense. I'm probably making a bigger deal out of it than it really is but no one can explain it.

And even despite all that brilliant engineering most people, at least on AZ would rather have a Z06 for a bit more dough.... that means Nissan's done something wrong.

 

The GT-R is definitely impressive (in its own way) if these numbers are true. Give me the Z06. lol

 

6 seconds around a small track is physically impossible IMO. The GTR didn’t even beat the Z06 around the Ring by that many seconds and it’s a much longer track. This test is very suspect to me.

 

I'll take a black Z06...

 

why do I feel the same way

 

Track speeds aside, I'm amazed it has similar braking, quarter-mile, and breaking numbers, for a car thats so heavy. Excellent engineering

 

yeah and also an excellent example of inefficiency. imagine if the car were lighter - it wouldn't need all that power and those huge brakes and those handling features. or, it could have all the same stuff, and rival an F1 car in performance. this is actually my biggest "beef" with the car, pun intended.

 

One thing is for sure, a car that heavy going that fast on the track is going to eat tires like popcorn.

 

^^ another facet of its inefficiency.

 

lol, hey I didn't know you change your display picture! If I knew you were I go to costco, I wouldn't have made those comments!

Anyways, back on topic, yea those numbers do sound suspicious. The Z06 does require an upshift at around 120mph, from 3rd to 4th gear (1st gear to 60, 2nd to 90, 3rd to 120). Shifting alone would cost you like 1/2 a second I believe. For the GTR, I think it makes more sense than the numbers from the Z06. The thing is, the GTR isn't all that fast from 100mph and on (I mean it's still fast, but there's a bit of difference against the Z06, as proven by the trap speed).

As for the lap time, it's not the first time Nissan supplied a "special" car to car magazines. It has done that with the G37 (which not many people know about that, or they simply think there's no way that's true). I don't know if that's the case though, but nonetheless it's a very fast car for its weight, no doubt about that. Also, it has dynoed at 482ps at the hub, which means it's make more than the claimed 480 crank hp for sure.

 

Most likely the deal is that they did the 1/4 mile times and the 0-120 times on different days and at different venues. You really can't do the speed measurements at a dragstrip, so they would have to do that somewhere else. Dragstrips tend to have very sticky launch boxes, so that may explain the out of whack time and speed differentials when looking at the numbers.

Not sure if that's really it, but I'd say its the leading hypothesis.

-Mirror

 

Uh-Oh. The bullshit starts again. If only xxxx car had yyyy stuff it would have beat/killed/matched the GT-R.

Engineering doesn't get better than this. GT-R>* in this respect. I bow down to the Nissan engineers for what they've done. And I don't generally like Nissans.

6 seconds on the Z06 and 997TT. Laptimes set by a PROFESSIONAL race driver on a great track. Holy cow.

What's the next excuse - the Z06 is faster than the GT-R from 140-160mph? The 997TT has better quality leather than the GT-R.....

I maintain that I (think) I would probably take a GT3 over this thing, extra $40k and all. But the GT-R is an engineering marvel.

 

Like I said, the GTR didn't beat the Z06 by 6 seconds at the Nurburgring. Steve Millen might have felt more comfortable driving the AWD car due to his rallying background. Another thing to consider is that he owns a company that tunes Nissans, so he could be a bit biased for obvious reasons. The Z06 beat the GT3 by 3 seconds at VIR and the 997TT 7 seconds during the same test (Lightning Lap). This R&T test shows the Z06 and 977TT equal, which should raise the BS flag.

 

it is because the GTR hits the rev limiter/governer @ 180kph (~112mph)

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/143...etails-emerge/

 

Seems like a valid cause.... that or the Millen thing.

If its governer kicks in at 112 how does it ever reach 120?

 

 

To be honest, I am getting sick of all of this GTR asskissing. Give me an R34 or give me the Z06, not some boat. I think in a lot of ways the GTR numbers are either inflated, or these magazines like going back on their previous reviews of a car and disregarding previous info.

 

N-ring has a really long straightaway....where the Z06 can gain ground

 

lots of interesting comments in here, including comments from a R&T editor.

http://forums.roadandtrack.com/cars/...&thread.id=138

my opinion - I concur with what someone stated before - the Z06 should have been a few seconds quicker than the 997 (guessing 2-3) and that does raise red flag(s) on this test.

 

not that much ground.

 

wat do u mean by "that much"?

Maximized said the GTR beat the z06 on the n-ring less than 6 secs..i said its cus there's straights that allow the z06 to gain ground since thats where the z06 shines over the gtr

 

oh ok - I misunderstood you.