GTR beats 911TT and Z06: from Road&Track

[gbb357]

911 Turbo:
Points: 380.7
Lap Times: 2:02.1
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6593
The 911 Turbo's price tag of $135,470 immediately puts it at a disadvantage in this test...the reality is that's the price one pays to drive, and be seen driving, Zuffenhausen's best. But when it comes to just the numbers, Japan's new super coupe has caught and surpassed the German thunder car, meaning that now, when you say Porsche, there is a substitute.

Z06 Corvette:
Points: 384.2
Lap Times: 2:02.2
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6592
We all agreed that the Corvette is the best-looking of the bunch. Its low, wide stance instantly implies that it means business. And when you consider its price tag of $79,595, the Corvette Z06 is still one of the best deals on the planet...only now, it may have company.

Nissan GTR:
Points: 386.6
Lap Times: 1:56.9
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6591
As for the car's styling, we like it, although there are others who feel that it looks too robot-like. But the bottom line here has little to do with the car's looks and everything to do with how it performed. Simply put, the GT-R is the most potent automobile to ever come from Japan, and will surely have manufacturers in America and Europe rethinking their ways. If it weren't for the car's $69,850 asking price (an estimated $72,880 for our test car) — and the fact it wears a Nissan badge — the GT-R might well be considered the most exotic car on the planet.

[chicagobimmerboy]

apparently V-Spec, V-Spec II and Nur-Spec models will follow, more power and lighter wieght. Be interesting to see how Porsche reacts in the coming years, this battle after all really is with Porsche and Nissan, these other cars are just in the way.

[swamp2]

Nice review, the accolades keep piling up. The most interesting points to me were (not in any particular order):

1. Worst gearbox rating. Hard to believe they did not nail the gearbox as well as they could have.
2. Worst ride by far. The adjustability of the suspension should have made this not the case.
3. Total dominance on steering, brakes and handling. Nice.
4. Weight as tested, 3960. This sucker is 2 full tons. I guess we have to get used to the idea that engineering can seriously "hide" mass from a handling perspective. Impressive.
5. Explanation of track times. Even the Nissan engineer said "we don't defy physics with the GT-R, we just apply it properly". However, despite this retort directly attacking the skeptics/attackers of the car, it was noted that the ATTESA system as well as the GT-R's "STICKY TIRES" contributed to its lap times. Again my suspicion is here (as it has been all along) that these tires are MPSC sticky or better. We all know how key tires are on a track and this is surely part of the magic here.

[BlackJetE90]

this battle after all really is with Porsche and Nissan, these other cars are just in the way.

Not according to the test. Z06 did GREAT.

[gbb357]

Nice review, the accolades keep piling up. The most interesting points to me were (not in any particular order):

1. Worst gearbox rating. Hard to believe they did not nail the gearbox as well as they could have.
2. Worst ride by far. The adjustability of the suspension should have made this not the case.
3. Total dominance on steering, brakes and handling. Nice.
4. Weight as tested, 3960. This sucker is 2 full tons. I guess we have to get used to the idea that engineering can seriously "hide" mass from a handling perspective. Impressive.
5. Explanation of track times. Even the Nissan engineer said "we don't defy physics with the GT-R, we just apply it properly". However, despite this retort directly attacking the skeptics/attackers of the car, it was noted that the ATTESA system as well as the GT-R's "STICKY TIRES" contributed to its lap times. Again my suspicion is here (as it has been all along) that these tires are MPSC sticky or better. We all know how key tires are on a track and this is surely part of the magic here.

That weight is just ridiculous. 3960!:confused0068: Don't mean to bring it up again, but i'm almost starting to really have doubts about the 480hp rating.

[gbb357]

It is amazing how the GTR beat both cars by 6 seconds, especially the 911TT. BTW, regardless of the results, it's still a Porsche. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE! :)

[swamp2]

That weight is just ridiculous. 3960!:confused0068: Don't mean to bring it up again, but i'm almost starting to really have doubts about the 480hp rating.

Good. That means we are getting closer and closer to agreement; each sort of moving toward the middle ground. Because I am having more confidence and being more and more impressed with the chassis, ATTESA-ETS, VDC-R, etc.

[///Mantis]

That weight is just ridiculous. 3960!:confused0068: Don't mean to bring it up again, but i'm almost starting to really have doubts about the 480hp rating.

means its chassis/drivetrain overs very minimal power loss, engine very responsive, and im sure turbo lag is minimized (actually havent read any turbo reviews on the car)

OMG!!! i wish that car came with 6MT

[gbb357]

Good. That means we are getting closer and closer to agreement; each sort of moving toward the middle ground. Because I am having more confidence and being more and more impressed with the chassis, ATTESA-ETS, VDC-R, etc.

Just almost Swamp. I still prefer and believe that it is not under-rated. But with the 6 seconds advantage and 500lbs heavier against the 911TT, it almost seems impossible not to be.

[rai]

just to point out the 'curb weight' is 38xx as they list. the test weight includes the driver and equipment etc..

Interesting to note the 911 turbo curb weight was 3550 which is about the same as the M3 (curb weight from various magazines)

[spearfisher]

for what the GTR weighs, very impressive

[devo]

just to point out the 'curb weight' is 38xx as they list. the test weight includes the driver and equipment etc..

Interesting to note the 911 turbo curb weight was 3550 which is about the same as the M3

You wish the M3's curb weight was 3550.

[lucid]

Good. That means we are getting closer and closer to agreement; each sort of moving toward the middle ground. Because I am having more confidence and being more and more impressed with the chassis, ATTESA-ETS, VDC-R, etc.

Just almost Swamp. I still prefer and believe that it is not under-rated. But with the 6 seconds advantage and 500lbs heavier against the 911TT, it almost seems impossible not to be.

Gbb & Swamp, I am speechless. So you can kind of agree and get along after all! :thumbsup:

[gbb357]

just to point out the 'curb weight' is 38xx as they list. the test weight includes the driver and equipment etc..

Interesting to note the 911 turbo curb weight was 3550 which is about the same as the M3 (curb weight from various magazines)

You're right. I did'nt realize that 3960 is test weight and i forgot that the curb weight for the GTR is 3800lbs or just above it. Still, the 6 seconds over the 911TT is still mind boggling.

[gbb357]

Gbb & Swamp, I am speechless. So you can kind of agree and get along after all! :thumbsup:

I know right, shocking. We can get along when we want to. And i genuinely would prefer and like to get along with everyone as much as possible.:cool!:

[rai]

You wish the M3's curb weight was 3550.reading is a gift, I said the M3 is about the same as the 911 turbo. I didn't say I wish it weighed 3550, I said that is what has been reported (numerous) magazines have weighed the M3 and it has been under 3600 lbs which is indeed colse to the listed weight of the 911 turbo (from this test).

BMW lists M3 3700 with driver (that's not curb weight) btw.

At 3571 pounds, the M3 is the lightest car here (243 fewer pounds than the RS 4 and, as noted, a whopping 463 pounds lighter than the C63


http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/performance_files_tested_by_c_d/gluttons_for_punishment_comparison_test+page-4.html

Maybe the sedan with 19" etc weighs 36xx lbs but from several magazines R&T, C&D etc.. which are weighing the cars (list curb weight with full gas)

[rai]

MT magazine lists the M3 sedan here as 3652 lbs (the sedan is slightly heaver than the coupe).

If the magazines are to be believed the M3 coupe is somewhere around 3600 lbs (some list less than that) which I did say is close to the listed 911 turbo 3550 lbs

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sports/112_0805_bmw_m3_lexus_is_f_mercedes_c63_amg_compar ison/specifications.html

[rai]

interesting, I have thought of getting a GTR myself but seems to hard to get one at this time, may revisit it in a year or two. But the GTR is actually 3" longer than the M3 sedan and 3" wider yet it's rear seats are (about) the same size as the much smaller 911 turbo. It seems to have 7" less rear seat headroom as the M3 coupe (from the listed measurements) and the legroom is just an inch more than the 911 turbos.

Not that I think that's what the gtr is about just it's a massive car and yet very little or no room in the rear seat may as well be a 2-seater.

I think the M3 coupe while a lot different than Z06 or GTR etc. does have a big advantage with it's rear seats. I'm 6'2" and sat in the rear of the M3 coupe. didn't have a ton of room but the fact is I sat in the back so a small adult should have no problem. if there was 7" less headroom I'd have to lay down across the seat cos I would not fit a second in that.

In fact the cubic feet measurements the M3 is not a lot smaller than the M5. I know it's some smaller but it's not like one of those cars where even toddlers can not fit in the back.

[devo]

reading is a gift, I said the M3 is about the same as the 911 turbo. I didn't say I wish it weighed 3550, I said that is what has been reported (numerous) magazines have weighed the M3 and it has been under 3600 lbs which is indeed colse to the listed weight of the 911 turbo (from this test).

BMW lists M3 3700 with driver (that's not curb weight) btw.




http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/performance_files_tested_by_c_d/gluttons_for_punishment_comparison_test+page-4.html

Maybe the sedan with 19" etc weighs 36xx lbs but from several magazines R&T, C&D etc.. which are weighing the cars (list curb weight with full gas)

Well, maybe you are not a gifted as you might think. So, try not to get your panties in a bunch.

Although, true, my statement was made in jest. Maybe, I should have said we rather than I, as I am quite confident that all of us wish the M did weigh about 3550.

What you did say was: "Interesting to note the 911 turbo curb weight was 3550 which is about the same as the M3". (Of course, that was until you edited it.) The turbo is listed at 3495 on Porsche's website and the M3 at 3704 on BMW's website. What I find interesting is that Porsche can add two turbos, AWD, a sunroof, bigger brake calipers, wheels and tires and still come in lighter than the M; the disparity differs depending on the source. (Porsche and BMW may or may not manipulate their weights)

On a side note, I believe that much of the 5+ second advantage to the GT-R was due to the much stickier tires. The Bridgestones used on that car have more stick than Porsche's PS2s.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Good. That means we are getting closer and closer to agreement; each sort of moving toward the middle ground. Because I am having more confidence and being more and more impressed with the chassis, ATTESA-ETS, VDC-R, etc.

I'm happy myself.

Doing the old tried and true analysis of trap speeds on these cars (tested together under the same weather conditions) shows that they tend toward accurate ratings.

Using the more than 50 year old (and basic) formula of trap speed divided by the constant 234, result cubed, times the tested weight gives the following:

Z06 - 495 HP
GT-R - 489 HP
Porsche Turbo - 516 HP

The Z06 loses a little based on tire slip in first and second gears - and if you've ever driven one, you know exactly what I'm talking about. The GT-R gains a bit based on a killer launch (see the acceleration graph in the R & T data panel) and killer shifts from its gearbox. The Porsche gains its advantage via the Sport Chrono package that gives you just over 500 pound feet of torque for most or all of the run, instead of its 457 ft/lb rating.

In short, no harm, no foul. Everybody's being pretty straight up on the power ratings. Not surprising, given SAE (and I assume DIN) rules.

Looking further at that graph from the data panel, it's clear that if you're crusing along at 80 or so and a Z06 pulls alongside, better start screwing with the radio rather than getting exhaust blown in your face if you're in either of the other cars. Likewise, if you're at a light in either of the other cars and a GT-R pulls up, better start looking for that hard-to-find jazz station until the Nissan is safely away and the folks behind you start to honk. :)

On a related topic and based on these results, it looks as if footie was right and I was wrong in regard to Nissan hobbling the GT-R's launch control for the U.S.

I am very pleased about that, and glad I didn't wager something on the outcome. :thumbsup:

Bruce

[swamp2]

...
The Porsche gains its advantage via the Sport Chrono package that gives you just over 500 pound feet of torque for most or all of the run, instead of its 457 ft/lb rating.
...


If the SC package delivers more torque over that broad of an rpm range the hp must increase in about the same ratio. Have you seen a dyno run for the SC package. Could it be that the torque is onlydelivered so low in rpm that the peak hp is not affected much?

[devo]

If the SC package delivers more torque over that broad of an rpm range the hp must increase in about the same ratio. Have you seen a dyno run for the SC package. Could it be that the torque is onlydelivered so low in rpm that the peak hp is not affected much?

With SC engaged low to mid-range hp is increased, however peak hp of 480 is not exceeded. I have seen dyno sheets which validate this. The gains are modest, but worthy nonetheless. (Torque increases from 457 to 505.) Over-boost is achieved between 2100 and 4000 rpms. After 4000 rpms, boost tapers off until 5000 rpms where boost returns to the normal output. The only way to activate over-boost is by fully depressing the throttle (between 2100 and 4000). The car must be equipped with the OPTIONAL Sport Chrono package.

In most races, SC is relatively moot, as the revs never dip below 4000 rpms except from the dig. Although, SC is active while tapering down between 4000-5000 rpms, it can not be activated by merely dipping below 5000. The extra boost is only available for 10 second bursts, which is far more than what is needed.

The power of the turbo is so linear that you do not realize the extra torque/hp of SC. It justs feel like any time warp machine when you pin the go pedal.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

If the SC package delivers more torque over that broad of an rpm range the hp must increase in about the same ratio. Have you seen a dyno run for the SC package. Could it be that the torque is onlydelivered so low in rpm that the peak hp is not affected much?

What I have been told by a 997 Turbo owner is that the full overboost is available between 2100 and 4000 rpm, and then tapers off gradually until it's at "normal" boost by the time you get to the power peak, which is therefore unchanged. He said it's most apparent in first and second gears, but that even in third and fourth, it's there after the shift.

On the other hand, I've just read devo's post, and in addition to being authoritative, it makes complete sense to me.

If devo is completely correct, then in my opinion the overboost isn't available for long enough during a quarter mile run to materially affect the trap speed. In that case, its augmented power (estimated from quarter mile speed) is from something else entirely.

Bruce

[devo]

What I have been told by a 997 Turbo owner is that the full overboost is available between 2100 and 4000 rpm, and then tapers off gradually until it's at "normal" boost by the time you get to the power peak, which is therefore unchanged. He said it's most apparent in first and second gears, but that even in third and fourth, it's there after the shift.

On the other hand, I've just read devo's post, and in addition to being authoritative, it makes complete sense to me.

If devo is completely correct, then in my opinion the overboost isn't available for long enough during a quarter mile run to materially affect the trap speed. In that case, its augmented power (estimated from quarter mile speed) is from something else entirely.

Bruce

I did not realize that I was being authoritative. But... okay.

I did own a 997tt (althoguh owninga car does not necessarily make my opinion(s) correct) and have seen dyno sheets that confirm much of what I have said; specifically where boost tapers at 4k then returns to normal at 5k. As I said, over-boost would only be realized in first gear during any drag race.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

I did not realize that I was being authoritative. But... okay...

My Webster's says: "having the weight of authority; official"

My intent was to use a slightly more powerful word than, say, "credible".

In other words, it seemed to me that I ought to lend weight to that particular post.

Bruce

[swamp2]

...
Using the more than 50 year old (and basic) formula of trap speed divided by the constant 234, result cubed, times the tested weight gives the following:
...


Bruce, using the recent C&D numbers that gbb posted and your formula above puts the GT-R right back at 580 hp. Trap was 124, weight 3908. Not sure this formula is so "tried and true" and if so we are right back to the under-rating issue.

[footie]

Bruce, using the recent C&D numbers that gbb posted and your formula above puts the GT-R right back at 580 hp. Trap was 124, weight 3908. Not sure this formula is so "tried and true" and if so we are right back to the under-rating issue.


:sigh::help: :( :suicide::bonk::smash:"seesaw"

Pick the one you feel that suits this thread.

[gbb357]

:sigh::help: :( :suicide::bonk::smash:"seesaw"

Pick the one you feel that suits this thread.

^^^^:bellyroll:bellyroll:bellyroll

[swamp2]

Look guys, glad you feel it is all hilarious and pathetic. I am genuinely interested in the various conundrums here. If you will recall I have faced near infinite flak from Bruce about the validity and application of formulae (which really is what simulation is anyway - a whole lot of forumlae). I am very curious how he can explain this. Tell me a 124 mph trap speed does not give you slightest inkling, of a small possibilty, of a slight over-rating? :D

[footie]

The thing I find hilarious is the fact that we has all written posts on the GTR, possibly hundreds by now and yet we are right back to the original comment from your good self swampie that the GTR is Under-rated after all.

[swamp2]

The thing I find hilarious is the fact that we has all written posts on the GTR, possibly hundreds by now and yet we are right back to the original comment from your good self swampie that the GTR is Under-rated after all.

Well it is funny I guess. But the evidence just won't seem to cooperate (to put it very sarcastically) with the specs. I am certainly not going back down the path of "massive under-rating" but I think something is very much in question with Bruce's magic formula, the cars hp or both.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Look guys, glad you feel it is all hilarious and pathetic. I am genuinely interested in the various conundrums here. If you will recall I have faced near infinite flak from Bruce about the validity and application of formulae (which really is what simulation is anyway - a whole lot of forumlae).

C'mon, Swamp, you have to admit this is funny - and by the way, the remarks and general reactions are not all at your expense.

By the way, you never got any flak from me about the validity and application of simulation tools/formulae. Nope, it was more personal than that. It was specifically about your use of those tools, and you have to admit that at first, you were pretty pathetic. :)

I am very curious how he can explain this. Tell me a 124 mph trap speed does not give you slightest inkling, of a small possibilty, of a slight over-rating? :D

My explanation is that if the numbers hold up (and in my opinion, C & D doesn't screw up very often), then the GT-R is massively under-rated, or at least their particular Amerispec test car was. No smiley. I'm not kidding.

The speed over 234, result cubed times vehicle weight formula really is tried and true, and the last time I saw it was in the April Road & Track as part of an answer in the tech questions section - page 106.

That formula shows the GT-R with over 600 HP, assuming 124 mph and 4078 pounds with full tank plus driver and test equipment (3908 curb weight).

Horsepower understated by more than 20%? Is that massive? I should say so! If these results start coming in from other sources, it'll be confirmed, in my book.

I may need to face in your compass direction from my place and do the "We're not worthy!" bow at least three or four times.

On the other hand, there's something a little screwy about the disparity between Road & Track and Car & Driver. They vary a bit in test methods, most notably in that R & T doesn't bother zeroing their results to standard day test conditions, but in this case test conditions were quite good at their site. So, 124 mph vs 116.5 mph just isn't a credible difference unless we've got either a problem with one car or a ringer for the other.

Film at 11, as they (used to) say. Meanwhile this situation grows curiouser and curiouser. I am definitely looking forward to the inevitable further comparison tests.

Swamp, if we see more of such trap speeds from the GT-R, you were right, right from the beginning.

Bruce

PS - Of course, you really were an "Abbott and Costello in the lab" routine with your early simulations. :)

[footie]

Bruce,

When you compare the M3 results in Europe against those in the US and in particular C & D you have to assume that almost all of their results must come from ringers.

[swamp2]

C'mon, Swamp, you have to admit this is funny - and by the way, the remarks and general reactions are not all at your expense.
...


Good that you are open to the evidence and all of it. This has been my primary thrust all along. This 124 mph thing is pretty darn clear evidence. I did not sweat the details between curb/as tested figures so just used their 39XX lb figure and this rough formula to come up with the ~580 hp number.

As much as you are willing to pass along a couple of small compliments here your ongoing insults and exaggerations are have worn thin long long ago. Do we have to completely address all of these old topics? Your insults push me to want to do so. My early attempts "pathetic", sure a couple mph and a couple tenths here or there = pathetic. We will never see eye to eye on the sources and real meaning of simple concepts like average, standard deviation, systematic and random errors. What about your use of a 2WD simulation tool to simulate an AWD vehicle, talk about, inapproproate and hopelessly inaccurate. Note my avoidance of much more insulting words/terms like pathetic or "Abbott and Costello".

Pot, kettle, black.

Carry on, and like I always say let the evidence continue to flow and to be analyzed.

[swamp2]

Bruce,

When you compare the M3 results in Europe against those in the US and in particular C & D you have to assume that almost all of their results must come from ringers.

Not so. A 111 mph to 115 mph variation in trap is not quite as extreme as 124 vs. 117. You can not just subtract the numbers, i.e. max spread = 4 vs. 7. There is a CUBIC relationship here as well as a much larger spread. Rememer that tests absolutely are not always appled to apples, in fact we know them to generally be apples vs. organges.

[footie]

Not so. A 111 mph to 115 mph variation in trap is not quite as extreme as 124 vs. 117. You can not just subtract the numbers, i.e. max spread = 4 vs. 7. There is a CUBIC relationship here as well as a much larger spread. Rememer that tests absolutely are not always appled to apples, in fact we know them to generally be apples vs. organges.

Fair play but why is there so little a difference on this side of the water. Could it be possible that manufacturers spice up their cars in the US because it's so large a market to them.

Look at the figures for the GTR on this side of the water and I reckon they will be closer to that of the 117mph figure.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Good that you are open the the evidence and all of it. This has been my primary thrust all along. This 124 mph thing is pretty darn clear evidence. I did not sweat the details between curb/as tested figures so just used their 39XX lb figure and this rough formula to come up with the ~580 hp number.

As much as you are willing to pass along a couple of small compliments here your ongoing insults and exaggerations are have worn thin long long ago. Do we have to completely address all of these old topics? Your insults push me to want to do so. My early attempts "pathetic", sure a couple mph and a couple tenths here or there = pathetic. We will never see eye to eye on the sources and real meaning of simple concepts like average, standard deviation, systematic and random errors. What about your use of a 2WD simulation tool to simulate an AWD vehicle, talk about, inapproproate and hopelessly inaccurate. Note my avoidance of much more insulting words/terms like pathetic or "Abbott and Costello".

Pot, kettle, black.

Carry on, and like I always say let the evidence continue to flow and to be analyzed.

One of the reasons you're my favorite pain in the ass is that you're so damned easy. :)

Meanwhile, this is pretty fascinating stuff. The only thing that sort of jumps out is that the C & D car was an engineering test mule, which could mean anything - or nothing, of course.

Bruce